static libs ... again

[Rex Dieter]

Hans de Goede wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:

>> 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?

> Not split, but renamed would be a good so replace -devel with -static.

Eek.    I still think headers and api docs and such still should be in 
-devel (especially if there's any likelyhood of a real shared lib 
existing some day), and that -static should Requires: %{name}-devel

> Also I wonder how hard is it to add -fpic -DPIC to the cflags and change 
> the link command to generate an .so. The only added trouble would be 
> checking for abi changes on new releases and bumping the .so name a 
> release.

Exactly.  I'm of the opinion (in most cases) that if upstream isn't 
able/willing to do something (like generating shared libs), then neither 
am I (as packager).

-- Rex