[Fedora-packaging] Clarification of Static Libraries packaging guidelines

Jon Ciesla limb at jcomserv.net
Mon Dec 7 13:15:26 UTC 2009

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 19:00:50 +0100, Patrice wrote:
>> There should be no foo-devel-static. But I am not sure that there is a need
>> to change the guideline since it doesn't mention the devel-static 
>> possibility.
> So, we should get rid of the six remaining -devel-static packages then.
> One is in F12 "updates", btw. ;)  One at RPM Fusion.
> Though, without hanging around on IRC I still don't know whether I could
> simply go ahead and fix the packages for F13 devel or if this would be
> a case of filing tickets and waiting many months for a reaction.
I'd file the bugs, explain the problem, and include a short-ish timeline 
in which you expect a response or will make the change yourself.  I say 
2 weeks, unless the maintainer has something listed on the Vacation wiki 
page.  Then, if the don't reply, they were warned, just do it and take 
care of any deps.

My $0.02.

>> But once again, I think that the guidelines are clear on that subject:
> Well, I do too, but that's the theory only as I've found two review
> requests that create the full set of libfoo, libfoo-static + virtual
> libfoo-devel and libfoo-devel-static in libfoo-static.
> --
> Fedora-packaging mailing list
> Fedora-packaging at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list