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

[Kevin Kofler <kevin kofler chello at>]

Bill Crawford wrote:
> Surely either the compiler, or binutils, would need to have that as a
> Requires: rather than every package that's built with gcc (especially
> since it's not the program itself that *has* that requirement, it's the
> toolchain).

But that defeats the purpose of being able to track everything which is
statically linked to something.

And I know I'm splitting hairs there. ;-) libc_nonshared.a and the other
nonshared stuff in glibc deserves an exception.

        Kevin Kofler