static libs ... again
Rex Dieter
rdieter at math.unl.edu
Mon Feb 20 12:50:50 UTC 2006
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 23:02 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>>Ed Hill wrote:
>>>Is there is a middle ground in this static libs discussion?
>>>For instance, are there technical solutions such as:
>>> - all static libs should or perhaps must be in a -static
>>> sub-package
>>IMO, no point.
> I disagree.
> *-static would make packages using these static libs clearly
> identifiable from examining these packages' spec or src.rpm.
>
> "Lumping together" static and shared libs into *-devel, hides away usage
> of static libs from packaging.
Ralf, excellent point, and I'm swayed by the argument. If packagers
really want to include static libs, make it obvious and place them in a
-static subpkg.
One question to beg here... I maintain several libraries that come
*only* as static libs(*). At the moment, these pkgs provide *only* a
-devel pkg (pending upstream fix(es) to allow for shared/dynamic libs).
Is that acceptable or should these get split too?
-- Rex
(*) libassuan-devel, libfac-devel, factory-devel
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list