[Fedora-packaging] paragraph on shipping static numerical libs updated

Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs at math.uh.edu
Sat Jun 2 18:59:41 UTC 2007

>>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> writes:

PD> Here is an updated version of the paragraph about shipping
PD> static numerical libs taking into account the comments on the
PD> first version.

I can get behind this.  I have no problem with us shipping static
libraries if it helps the users as long as we're not shipping
statically linked programs.  However, we certainly shouldn't try to
"sell" static linking as a general solution, and I don't think this
draft does.

These two paragraphs can't just be pasted into the existing
guidelines, however, as that would result in a somewhat contradictory
text.  I'd like to see the complete "Exclusion of Static Libraries"
section (which will probably need a rename to continue making sense)
before we vote on anything.

I also wonder if it would be appropriate to include a statement that
package submitters should explain in the spec the reason why static
libraries are being packaged.

 - J<

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list