[Fedora-packaging] satic libs package naming

Patrice Dumas pertusus at free.fr
Fri Apr 20 11:13:41 UTC 2007

On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:06:51PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> The guidelines intention is to recommend "foo-static".

Ok, so what about rpmlint warnings? Ignore them or bugzilla rpmlint?

> If I was to decide, I would reject any static library unless a pressing
> need of requiring a static lib can be demonstrated (!).

There was a very long thread about that issue and I'd like not to repeat
it all over again. In summary, there are cases, like numerical models 
where all the reason that are for dynamic libraries don't make sense (use 
new version, security, dlopening, name resolution...) while compiling
statically helps being able to move programs to other hosts/linux
distros/ and so on. The other solution advocated instead of static 
linking (distributing shared libs along with the program and doing a
wrapper that setes things up) is much less practical.

Another reason may be the efficiency, as as demonstrated by Enrico 
numbers on tiny daemons, linking statically may lead to much more
efficient executables.

> *-static is supposed to be what you seem to prefer to call "*-static-devel".
> The difference is just the name.

I don't care about one or the other name, but rpmlint does.

> >  (But there are cases when user should be able to link 
> > against static libs, a prominent case -- my case -- being numerical
> > models).
> You know my opinion on this argument of yours: You are abusing Linux.

Not at all. I have specific needs.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list