[Fedora-packaging] static subpackages (was: sparse 0.2, headers and static lib)

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Dec 5 23:59:32 UTC 2006

On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 00:32 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 04:34:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> 1) need -devel have a Requires: %{name}-%{version}-${release} if that
>> doesn't include a shared library?  I wouldn't think so, but it's a
>> "Must" in the guidelines.

What's in the %{name} package?

> > 2) need I create a -static package for the static library?
> >
> > 3) if yes, should -static have a Requires:
> >    %{name}-devel-%{version}-%{release}?  Should this go in the
> >    recommendations for all -static packages?
I would think yes.  Does anyone see a problem with doing that?

You also need to writeup your reasons for having a static library in the
first place and presenting it to FESCo.  The fact that Jeff Garzik wants
to use it is a two edged sword -- on the one hand it means there is a
need for the library.  OTOH, it means that the library is going to be
used by multiple programs which is what leads to the security and other

The use of -static package names is supposed to help us deal with this
but we know it's not a complete job.

Jeff's comment that maybe the library is special and shouldn't be
subjected to the same ABI tests as the majority of libraries has merit.
But we don't have any guidelines in place for that... I don't think we
even have guidelines that forbid having that kind of ABI unstable
library in the first place.

> static subpackages have been discussed a bit in the recent past, but
> not by the packaging group. IMHO they make sense if static libs are to
> be part of the build for whatever reason, but we don't have any rules
> about it, not even about the naming, e.g. whether it should be called
> foo-static, foo-devel-static, foo-static-devel and so on. At any rate
> the "static" subpackage would have to require the conventional devel
> package to get access to the headers, so 3) above goes w/o saying.
> But first we would need to decide on how to handle static content in
> general, e.g. first decide on subpackaging it and then how the
> packages are to be handled.
> Just to catch any such discussion beforehand: *Whether* something
> needs to be statically linked or not, is a policy that is not decided
> by the packaging committee - we just consider the *how*s and let the
> *why*s to fesco and core. ;)
> To cut a long story short: Matt, if you do need a static lib, do as
> you please for now - we need to sort it out first, and then we'll tell
> you that it needs to be done differently ;)

Actually, I think we voted on this:

My memory is backed up by the status on:

Ralf just needs to move the document into the Packaging tree and update
the Guidelines in the proper places :-)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20061205/f4609a5c/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list