static libs ... again

[Hans de Goede]

Rex Dieter wrote:
> 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).
> 

Huh,

You say "Exactly" as in I agree with you and then you continue with 
saying that you're not willing todo this, I'm confused now.

Regards,

hans