[Fedora-packaging] Including a static library

Matthias Saou thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net
Fri Sep 22 14:36:46 UTC 2006


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)

I'm asking because since it's not really for "development", it would
make sense to split it out in a new sub-package. Also, that way it
would avoid any possible scenario where something rebuilding against
DirectFB would "accidentally" link statically instead of dynamically.

Thoughts? Some existing guideline I might have missed?


Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 5.92 (FC6 Test3) - Linux kernel 2.6.17-1.2647.fc6
Load : 0.08 0.12 0.12

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list