[Fedora-packaging] Static Library Policy Draft Changes

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> As promised, here is my new proposed draft for handling static libs:
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLibraryPolicy
> 
> I know that it won't make everyone happy (it doesn't just leave static
> bits in -devel), but we really do want to track who is building against
> static libraries.
> 
 From item #2:
"""
If the *-static-noshared package is no longer necessary, it should be 
removed, and Provided/Obsoleted by the *-devel package (not by the 
*-static package).
"""

I don't think we want to be Providing *-static-noshared in this case 
although the Obsolete makes sense.

 From item #3:
"""
When a package only provides static libraries you can place all the 
static library files in the *-devel subpackage. When doing this you also 
have to have a virtual Provide for the *-static and *-static-noshared 
packages:
"""

It seems like we should only have a Provide for *-static-noshared as 
this is a special case of item #2.  Thoughts on that?

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20080408/61612883/attachment.sig>