static libraries' policy: possible solution

Jeff Spaleta jspaleta at gmail.com
Thu Nov 17 15:01:44 UTC 2005


On 11/16/05, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
> 1. and 2. can simply be solved by removing the static libs, though.

Or looking at it another way....
If static libraries are to be dropped completely what changes/tools
could be made to make it as easy as possible for people who "need"
static libs to re-generate them locally as needed?
I understand and accept the argument that there will be situations
where a developer will want to link statically in situations which run
counter to Extras packaging policy standards, for example in-house
development needs.  How much easier can rebuilding srpms locally be
made so that statics can be recovered sanely?

I don't think its unreasonable to expect people who are using Fedora
as a development platform to rebuild packages on occasion.. they are
doing development after all. But the question is, can libraries be
packaged in a way that makes it stupefyingly easy to get the statics
back locally and keep them synced across package updates.. without
horking around with specfiles.

-jef




More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list