static libraries' policy

[Tom 'spot' Callaway]

On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 11:28 +0100, Christian.Iseli at licr.org wrote:
> pertusus at free.fr said:
> > I can't see what harm is done when a static library is shipped together with
> > a dynamic library.
> 
> Ah well, there was a thread on that topic in fedora-maintainers back in July:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2005-July/msg00061.html
> 
> The idea to have -static packages was vetoed at some point
> (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2005-July/msg00095.html)
> but most people seemed to agree that getting rid of static libs was a good 
> idea...

Right now, there is not a "no static libs permitted" policy. The policy
states that they should be avoided wherever possible. I could change
this to a "no static libs unless you have a darned good reason, which
you will need to document in the spec file" policy, since some apps are
just too dumb to work with out them (unless the maintainer is willing to
do what amounts to their own fork of the code).

The consensus that I'm hearing here is that a policy change would be
welcomed for FC5+, does anyone dissent?

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!