Fedora 11 Mass Rebuild

[Ralf Corsepius]

Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 February 2009 11:37:27 pm Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Conrad Meyer wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 17 February 2009 10:52:50 pm Jesse Keating wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 23:23 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
>>>>> I don't have a good way to search for static linking without examining
>>>>> bins, but I've got a cold and feel like utter poo, so maybe I'm missing
>>>>> something!
>>>> I think when the static guidelines were put in place, it was so that we
>>>> could easily discover the static packages, this being one of the
>>>> reasons.
>>> Could it be as simple as anything BuildRequiring *-static?
>> Theoretically, yes. Unfortunately, there seem to be some packagers who
>> seem to be unwilling to accept *-static.
>>
>> Ralf
> 
> The guidelines say that any package providing static libs needs to Provides: -
> static subpackages, and that packages linking with static libs at compile time 
> need to BR the -static subpackage, not -devel (even if it's the same package). 
> Thus any package not doing this needs to be fixed.

# rpm -qf /usr/lib/libc.a
glibc-devel-2.9-3.i386

# rpm -q --provides glibc-devel | grep static

<no comment>

Ralf