Comment # 3 on bug 1187910 from Egbert Eich

(In reply to Peter Hill from comment #2)
> +1 for renaming back to `nf-config` -- this is the standard name that many
> build tools will be looking for. As far as I can tell, OpenSUSE is the only
> OS that names it this way.
> 
> The package name is a little bit confusing too:
> 
> - nc-config is provided by netcdf-devel
> - ncxx4-config is provided by netcdf-cxx4-tools
> - nf-fortran-config is provided by netcdf-fortran_4_5_3-gnu-hpc
> 
> Would it be possible to have the `*-config` utilities be provided by the
> `*-devel` packages? It's not clear to me why they are packaged separately.
> Even having them as recommended packages would be useful.

I will see what I can do without getting complained at by rpmlint for not
adhering to some packaging guideline.
At least I will make the packages containing these tools prerequisites of the
-devel packages. 

> >> Separately, there is no non-environment module `netcdf-fortran` package.
> 
> > No, there isn't. This is not a bug.
> 
> Please could you say why this is? Clearly there's a reason, but I find it a
> bit confusing that there are non-environment module versions of the C and
> C++ libraries, just not for Fortran. The .mod files obviously depend on the
> compiler, but I would expect the system package to require the system
> compiler. `hdf5-devel`, for example, does include the Fortran .mod files in
> the non-module package.

The non-environment module versions were there before I started creating the
variant using environment modules so I kept them around. After all, I did not
want to disfranchise existing users. There was no netcdf-fortran package when I
started it. Having both variants makes the spec file even more complex and I
did not need non-environment module versions as this is usually not what one
wants to use in an HPC environment. 
Now, with containers, this may change. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it is
a good idea to go thru packages for building these.