glibc-devel vs. glibc-devel{,-static}

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub redhat com>]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 08:59:57AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> The guidelines say that any package providing static libs needs to Provides: -
>> static subpackages, and that packages linking with static libs at 
>> compile time need to BR the -static subpackage, not -devel (even if 
>> it's the same package). Thus any package not doing this needs to be 
>> fixed.
>
> # rpm -qf /usr/lib/libc.a
> glibc-devel-2.9-3.i386
>
> # rpm -q --provides glibc-devel | grep static
>
> <no comment>

If there is consensus that libc.a doesn't belong into glibc-devel
and if we are prepared for thousands of bugreports that gcc -static
stopped working in Fedora 11, sure, libc.a and other static libraries from
glibc-devel (except lib{c,pthread}_nonshared.a, libbsd{,-compat}.a, libg.a,
libieee.a, libmcheck.a, librpcsvc.a) can be moved to glibc-devel-static.

This would mean among other things that all packages that link with -static
would automatically fail to build during mass rebuild.

	Jakub