and according to the private correspondence that just was a slip ;)

I have another question - it is true that the packages have no dynamic libraries, but they do have static libraries. It appears to me that with those present, the header files actually make sense, no?

In fact, the presence of static libraries, to me, seems a much more compelling reason to include headers, because unlike dynamic libraries, the static ones are not needed for running the executables and are good only for development.

No?

Well, maybe not a slip. More of a miscommunication with CPack (probably) or maybe a CPack bug (possibly)?

From cmtkConfigureCPack.cmake:

CPACK_ADD_COMPONENT(libraries
DISPLAY_NAME "Link Libraries"
GROUP development
DISABLED)

CPACK_ADD_COMPONENT(headers
DISPLAY_NAME "C/C++ Header Files"
GROUP development
DISABLED)

But I guess the RPM/tar packagers may not respect the grouping or the "DISABLED" default.

I will look into this.