[Fedora-packaging] Static Library Policy Draft Changes

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 00:59 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> I don't understand the difference between #2 and #3.

It's a subtle distinction.

In 2, you have some static libraries and some shared libraries, but the
static librar{y,ies} don't have shared alternatives.  We don't want to
stuff the static ones into the -devel package as we then lose the
ability to track what packages statically link against said library, and
we don't want to put them in -static as we then run the risk of
statically linking to /all/ the static libraries, even those that have
shared alternatives.  In 3, there is /only/ static libraries, which if
we were to try splitting out the static libraries you'd wind up with an
empty -devel subpackage.  That's why it's OK then to put the static
libraries directly in the -devel subpackage, but still packages which
link to those static BR the -static provides.

Nonshared subpackage is needed to isolate the static with no alternative
libraries from the static with alternative libraries.  This way you
don't run the risk of statically linking to /all/ the static libraries,
even those that have shared alternatives.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20080409/18fae24d/attachment.sig>