Re: static libs ... again

[Orion Poplawski <orion cora nwra com>]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 07:10 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > > 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.
> ACK, plus letting -static provide -devel.
>
> For packages having both static and shared libraries I'd, put
> everything but the static libs into *-devel and let *-static "Requires:
> *-devel".
>
> [BTW: we had discussed this in great dep several months ago on one of
> this too many fedora lists.]
>
> > 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
> Hmm, headers without libs in most cases are useless, but shipping docs
> in *-devel, even for -static only packages is worth a thought. I am not
> sure.

Not sure who I'm agreeing with here :-), but:

- Put static libs in -static (so they don't get used accidentally)
- Keep -devel for headers and shared libs (if existing)
- -devel requires -static if no shared libs so that dependent packages 
only use BR: -devel.


--
Orion Poplawski
System Administrator                   303-415-9701 x222
Colorado Research Associates/NWRA      FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane, Boulder CO 80301   http://www.co-ra.com