[Fedora-packaging] Re: Including a static library
rc040203 at freenet.de
Tue Sep 26 04:54:16 UTC 2006
On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 16:53 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Tom 'spot' Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) said:
> > -static subpackages have always seemed to make sense to me, but it was
> > pointed out to me originally that increasing the number of subpackages
> > increases the size of the metadata and makes all yum operations slower.
> > Thoughts? Perhaps a separate -static repo?
> Depends on how many. I believe the idea is not to package *all*
> static libs....
Exactly, but isn't it apparent that we need measures to enforce this
rule to shift the threshold to maintainers to be wanting to ship static
So far, FE package maintainers are ignoring this rule, some are hostile
against this, rpmlint doesn't warn about them, but
... RH/FC doesn't actually do better. At least on my installations the
major of static libs originate from FC. How about RH behaving as a
positive example and to start abandoning static libs in FC?
More information about the Fedora-packaging