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

Re: static libs ... again



On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 23:02 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Ed Hill wrote:
> 
> > Is there is a middle ground in this static libs discussion?
> > 
> > For instance, are there technical solutions such as:
> > 
> >  - all static libs should or perhaps must be in a -static 
> >      sub-package
> 
> IMO, no point. 
I disagree.

*-static would make packages using these static libs clearly
identifiable from examining these packages' spec or src.rpm.

"Lumping together" static and shared libs into *-devel, hides away usage
of static libs from packaging.

>  If a packager really wants them, put 'em in -devel.
Cf. above.

> >  - no -static sub-packages are allowed as BuildRequires for 
> >      other FC or FE packages
> 
> In general, agreed.
ACK.

> >  - the -static packages are strictly optional so maintainers 
> >      may provide them or not at their own discretion
> 
> I'd argue the general rule should be that static libs be omitted, unless 
> there is (very) good reason to include otherwise.
ACK.

Ralf



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