[Fedora-packaging] Static Library Policy Draft Changes

[Rex Dieter]

Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) said: 
>>> Since spot was the person who described it to me, perhaps it would be
>>> best to get his input here.  The way he stated it was that if there
>>> were
>>> static libs around at link time, they would get automatically linked,
>>> even if the didn't want them to.
>> A lot of packages will look first for static libraries, then if (and
>> only if) they are not found, look for shared libraries. By splitting
>> into static and static-noshared, we can safely put in -devel and
>> -static-noshared and avoid this confusion.
> 
> That's not the case for anything that just passes -l<foo>. Can't
> we just fix those packages?

+1 to bill's comment.  I see static-noshared as nothing but a hack to 
get around what could/should be fixed in the offending packages.

Unless there is some other purpose to it that I'm missing.  Heightened 
paranoia, err, verification about what is being statically linked?

-- Rex