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

Re: static libs ... again



Rex Dieter wrote:
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


Not split, but renamed would be a good so replace -devel with -static.

Also I wonder how hard is it to add -fpic -DPIC to the cflags and change the link command to generate an .so. The only added trouble would be checking for abi changes on new releases and bumping the .so name a release.

Regards,

Hans



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