rpms/libsigsegv/FC-4 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 libsigsegv.spec, 1.5, 1.6 sources, 1.2, 1.3
Ralf Corsepius
rc040203 at freenet.de
Fri Oct 7 14:34:14 UTC 2005
- Previous message (by thread): rpms/libsigsegv/FC-4 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 libsigsegv.spec, 1.5, 1.6 sources, 1.2, 1.3
- Next message (by thread): rpms/libsigsegv/FC-4 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 libsigsegv.spec, 1.5, 1.6 sources, 1.2, 1.3
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 07:20 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> 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.
No. If a package ships an *.la's these are part of these packages' API.
RH is ill-advised in removing them and so is FE.
> 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. (-:
This is FE, currently addressing FC3, FC4 and rawhide, older RHs are
irrelevant.
> >> %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).
1. I guess you are aware, about the general maintenance issues and
security risks shipping static libs imply?
2. If a package requires to be linked statically, it is broken by
design.
Ralf
- Previous message (by thread): rpms/libsigsegv/FC-4 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 libsigsegv.spec, 1.5, 1.6 sources, 1.2, 1.3
- Next message (by thread): rpms/libsigsegv/FC-4 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 libsigsegv.spec, 1.5, 1.6 sources, 1.2, 1.3
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list