[Fedora-packaging] Re: satic libs package naming
ville.skytta at iki.fi
Fri Apr 20 14:42:44 UTC 2007
On Friday 20 April 2007, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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. :)
rpmlint 0.80 treats *-static as devel packages, earlier versions don't.
More information about the Fedora-packaging