static libs ... again

[Rex Dieter]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 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.

Ralf, excellent point, and I'm swayed by the argument.  If packagers 
really want to include static libs, make it obvious and place them in a 
-static subpkg.

One question to beg here... I maintain several libraries that come 
*only* as static libs(*).  At the moment, these pkgs provide *only* a 
-devel pkg (pending upstream fix(es) to allow for shared/dynamic libs). 
  Is that acceptable or should these get split too?

-- Rex

(*) libassuan-devel, libfac-devel, factory-devel