static libraries' policy: possible solution

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 13:39 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> I'll restate my question.  Can the client side tools available to
> developers be re-engineered or supllimented to make it possible to
> rebuild the static libraries locally and keep them updated locally as
> official updates come down the line. I'm not talking about what the
> limitations are for existing tools.  I'm asking is it worth modifying
> client tools or creating additional tools to make it easier for
> developers who need statics to rebuild them locally and keep them
> updated through normal means, so developers will not have to exclude
> updates at all. Can tools be designed so library updates trigger local
> rebuilds of static subpackages?

Yes.  The project to do this is called conary :-)

Seriously, a client side tool would have to be a custom tool, not rpm or
yum.  The tool would have to be in charge of downloading the libraries
in question (perhaps it could create its own version of libraries with
impossibly high epochs as a kludge), compiling them from the srpm into
their own local versions, and then installing them to the system.  And
the upstream rpm packagers would still have to do work on their spec
files to get this to work.

I think this is a compromise that would leave everone unhappy.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20051118/d5046116/attachment.sig>