[Fedora-packaging] Re: satic libs package naming

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Fri Apr 20 11:33:48 UTC 2007

On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:13:41PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> 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?

IIRC Ville wanted to speak with upstream to allow *.a in
*-static. Maybe he'll comment on what rpmlint currently does and
whether upstream perhaps rejected this, or perhaps whether my memory
is segfaulting. :)

> > *-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.

What does rpmlint say? I think the idea was to have all, but static
libs in *-devel and *.a in *-static.

> > >  (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.

I think Ralf means that you are abusing Linux by computing numerical
models and doing serious number crunching. Go play a game ;)

(P.S. there is a smiley, but nevertheless: the above is a joke!)
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070420/43ff5b6d/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list