Static linking considered harmful

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 08:44:47PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
> 
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >> +1, although it would be a good idea to put the static libs in a
> >> seperate sub package. ( /me has no need for such a beast)
> > 
> > Have you seen Dmitry Butskoy's post on this? He has created debuginfo
> > macros that automatically cater for that (packages are then named
> > foo-static, but that's tunable) w/o any changes in existing
> > specfiles.
> > 
> 
> Yeah I've seen that but I'm not sure if I like that, thats because I'm
> not sure if we should offer static libs for all packages or only for
> certain ones (like glibc, libstdc++, some standard X11 libs)

The decision whether to offer static libs is still the specfile's, the
intersting part is to have any remaining *.a file autopackage itself
into these *-static packages w/o any hassle from a packager's POV.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20061124/7bcd94af/attachment.sig>