Re: Fedora 11 Mass Rebuild

[Patrice Dumas <pertusus free fr>]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:20:37PM -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 February 2009 10:52:50 pm Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 23:23 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> > > I don't have a good way to search for static linking without examining
> > > bins, but I've got a cold and feel like utter poo, so maybe I'm missing
> > > something!
> >
> > I think when the static guidelines were put in place, it was so that we
> > could easily discover the static packages, this being one of the
> > reasons.
> 
> Could it be as simple as anything BuildRequiring *-static?

No, but I have some scripts built around repoquery that I used to 
use to verify that library followed the guidelines, that packages 
with both shared libraries and static libraries had static libraries
in a separate subpackage, and that no package was built against static
libs except when necessary. It also listed the packages linked against
static libraries. The most annoying bug I found that is not already fixed
is with libruby having static lib, explained in 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428384
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454121

I have also sent all this in a mail I sent after leaving fedora, with
the script I used (that needs work).

In my recalling there wern't that many static libs used in links, and
not that many packages built against static libs.

--
Pat