[Fedora-packaging] Static Library Policy Draft Changes

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 16:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Also, this will never happen in a chroot unless a package BR:'s *-static
> or if a *-devel contains a static library.
> 
> >  By splitting
> > into static and static-noshared, we can safely put in -devel and
> > -static-noshared and avoid this confusion.
> 
> Which confusion? I don't see any such confusion. The only situation such
> case may occur is with packages whose maintainers have been ignorant on
> the *-static/*-devel rule so far.

For the case where you have some shared, some static with matching
shared, and some static only:

If you put the static only in -devel, we can't reasonably detect all the
things that link against the static library.  We'd have to investigate
anything that BRs the -devel package.  If you put the static only in
with the other statics in -static you then have all the statics in the
chroot and run the risk that spot talks about of accidentally statically
linking to things 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/20080409/3543d8e0/attachment.sig>