static libraries' policy

[Dmitry Butskoy]

Dmitry Butskoy wrote:

>
> This statistics as well as the discussion which has arisen after my 
> initial message, testifies that people either did not hear about 
> changes, or disagree with them.
>
> This situation creates a precedent: there is a policy, but significant 
> part of maintainers ignore it.


Rex Dieter wrote:

>     And should the static libs be placed in a -static package or not
>     packaged at all? 
>
>IMO, not packaged at all.
>  
>

Dmitry Butskoy wrote:

> Anyway, the total impossibility to make the static program is very 
> rough idea.


Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

>We should remove the policy from the wiki until we hash out what we
>really want. 
>

Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:

>The consensus that I'm hearing here is that a policy change would be
>welcomed for FC5+
>  
>

Are there any chances to clear this problem in the nearest future? In 
other words - what I should do  with static libraries today? And whether 
it will be necessary to alter things in the near future?


~buc





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20051111/9da26b02/attachment.htm>