[Fedora-packaging] Static Library Policy Draft Changes

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 09:44 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 14:17 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > >  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?
> > > 
> > 
> > I actually think we only should have a Provide for *-static, so that people who 
> > want to use static libs now and in the future (when there may be a shared 
> > version) , can guarantee they will get the static version by BuildRequiring the 
> > -static, since very few packages will ever have a real *-static-noshared, 
> > having a virtual provides for this feels wrong.
> 
> The problem is two-fold:
> 
> 1. We want to be able to track when packages are building against static
> libraries, whether they are static or static-noshared.
What for? IMO this is simply bureaucracy.  

> 2. When a package goes from only providing static libraries to providing
> some shared libraries (but not all), we want to be able to track these.
But this isn't what your proposal does.

Your proposal pesters/pollutes library-clients *.specs with a library's
provider's packaging details, these library-clients are not interested
in.

> If we have these packages BuildRequire the static provide, that won't be
> correct anymore (we want them to use the shared libraries +
> static-noshared).
> 
> Realistically, what Toshio says is correct, we strictly speaking only
> need the Provide for *-static-noshared there. I kept the other *-static
> provide since it is how we used to do it.
This is something completely different.

Here, you seem to be talking about "Additionally providing
*-static-noshared" and NOT to pester library-clients with BR:
*-static-nonshared".

In real world, no library-client who needs a static library, needs know
if this library is being provided "*-static-noshared" or "*-static".
=> Such kind of Provides is useless to the library-client.

Ralf