[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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



Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 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.

In principle, libc_nonshared.a etc. all fall under the "what if only a
static library is provided" policy, so if the guideline was enforced for
glibc, every single package containing compiled code would need to BR
glibc-static (or rather glibc-nonshared-static or something like that to
distinguish it from a true glibc-static subpackage which should be what
ships libc.a) because it links libc_nonshared.a.

        Kevin Kofler


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]