rpms/libsigsegv/FC-4 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 libsigsegv.spec, 1.5, 1.6 sources, 1.2, 1.3

[Rex Dieter]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 14:24 -0400, Rex Dieter wrote:
> 
>>Author: rdieter
>>
>>Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/libsigsegv/FC-4

>>+rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/lib*.la
>>+
> 
>  
> You can't remove *.la from a package which already has been released.
> This breaks all packages depending on this library. You can only do this
> for unreleased packages, but not for already released packages.

I think you're being a bit overly dramatic.  It certainly does not break 
*all* packages.  At most, it breaks only packages built that themselves 
include libtool archives that refer to the now-missing libsigsegv.la, 
and I'm aware of none that do.  Now, if it turns out this change *does* 
cause problems with another FE package,
1.  I'd consider reverting the change, but I'd prefer that:
2.  The now-broken package be rebuilt against the newer (IMO 
fixed/better) libsigsegv.

>> %check || :
> Cosmetic issue: The "|| :" is superfluous.

It's not superfluous for those of us interested in making packages that 
build on older fc/rh releases.  (-:

>> %files devel
>> %defattr(-,root,root)
>> %{_libdir}/lib*.so
>>-%{_libdir}/lib*.*a
>>+%{_libdir}/lib*.a
> 
> Adding a static library to a package that previous had not contained
> one? Where is the sense in this? 

As I noted in the cvs commit log, in this case
1.  the static lib is *very* small (~4k)
2.  it doesn't depend on any external library
3.  I can think of cases where one may want to link statically (in 
clisp, for instance).

-- Rex