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

Re: static libs ... again



Rex Dieter wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:

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?

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

Eek. I still think headers and api docs and such still should be in -devel (especially if there's any likelyhood of a real shared lib existing some day), and that -static should Requires: %{name}-devel

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.

Exactly. I'm of the opinion (in most cases) that if upstream isn't able/willing to do something (like generating shared libs), then neither am I (as packager).


Huh,

You say "Exactly" as in I agree with you and then you continue with saying that you're not willing todo this, I'm confused now.

Regards,

hans



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