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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Sat Jun 2 21:19:32 UTC 2007

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 04:08:32PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> writes:
> AT> I think this is nice OTOH, but difficult to foresee OTOH.
> Well, at some point you have to know you need a static library,
> because you'll put the necessary bits in the spec to make it happen.

The problem is that the packager of libfoofastmem may not know that
building the unpackaged supernumberbar and bazcrunch requires
libfoofastmem. E.g. the people that know where a static lib is needed
are not the packagers, but the consumers.

> I see no reason a comment explaining the need couldn't be added at
> that time.
> And if someone doesn't know that the static library is needed, it
> probably shouldn't be packaged.

The packager of libfoofastmem may not be interested in any numeric
stuff at all, he may need libfoofastmem for a fuse tmpfs module and
not ever having thought about other consumers. E.g. the knowledge to
document the use of static libs implies that reverse build
dependencies of unpackaged software are known to the consumed party,
which must not be the case.
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/20070602/3683628f/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list