static libs ... again

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 11:53 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 07:10 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >> Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>> Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> > ACK, plus letting -static provide -devel.
> > 
> > For packages having both static and shared libraries I'd, put
> > everything but the static libs into *-devel and let *-static "Requires:
> > *-devel".
> > 
> > [BTW: we had discussed this in great dep several months ago on one of
> > this too many fedora lists.]


> - -devel requires -static if no shared libs so that dependent packages 
> only use BR: -devel.
This would render the whole purpose of this undertaking absurd.

The whole idea is to break compatibility between *-devel and *-static
packages, such that packages really _needing_ to link against *static
libs can't avoid to 'BR: *-static", while package wanting "any library"
will get them through "BR: *-devel", no matter whether they are static
or shared.

I.e. 
* For packages providing shared libs and static libs: headers and shared
libs in *-devel, static libs in *static, *-static requires *-devel.
Using shared libs would imply BR: *-devel.
Using static libs would imply BR: *-static.

* For packages providing stared libs only: headers and shared libs in
*-devel.
Using shared libs would imply BR: *-devel.

* For packages providing static libs only: Headers and shared libs in
*-devel + "Provides: *-static".
Using libs would imply BR: *-devel.
Packages intentionally wanting static libs would: BR: *-static.

Ralf