[Fedora-packaging] Static Library Policy Draft Changes

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Wed Apr 9 12:39:06 UTC 2008


On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 07:37 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 23:12 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > I'd rather just require them to be in -static instead of -static-noshared
> > - they can still be tracked that way.
> 
> The problem (as described to me) is that if you put them in -static, and
> you BR -static, you then potentially link against /all/ the static
> libraries, even those that have shared alternatives.
How that? Our rule has been that *-static must Require *-devel, i.e.
unless a package is playing nasty games with linking (or this packaging
rule is being obeyed), it will always link dynamically.

>   The motivation was
> to isolate the static libraries which have no shared alternative from
> those that do.
> 
> We can still "track" things which BR -static-noshared just as easily as
> we can track those that BR -static.
I still fail to see the usefulness of this.

Our logic had been: Client-packages who intentionally want to link
statically, must BR: *-static, those who don't care should BR: *-devel.

With your approach above, client-packages will have to care about
characteristics of a package providing a static library. 

This doesn't make any sense to me on the client-side.

Ralf





More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list