[Fedora-packaging] Re: Including a static library
rc040203 at freenet.de
Mon Sep 25 13:38:05 UTC 2006
On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 06:59 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Matthias Saou wrote:
> > Regarding this bug : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/204568
> > It does makes sense to ship the DirectFB static libraries for some
> > users. So here are my questions :
> > - Should they be put into the existing -devel sub-package?
> > - Should they be put into a new separate sub-package? (-static)
> As long as the static lib doesn't change the behavior of (most) typical
> builds using
> BuildRequires: DirectFB-devel
> I'd say a separate package is overkill.
I'd say packaging static libs into separate *-static packages should be
made mandatory to
* make such dependencies apparent (otherwise the next maintainer will
want to drop them from *-devel and nobody will notice until somebody who
can't resist linking against them will yell).
* avoid bloating the distro with unnecessary libs (Almost nobody will
* make packages providing static libs obvious.
Besides this: Is using a userspace library such as DirectFB inside of
initrd useful? I hardly can't imagine why.
More information about the Fedora-packaging