static libraries' policy: possible solution

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 11/18/05, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio at tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
> Seriously, a client side tool would have to be a custom tool, not rpm or
> yum.
Someone couldn't come up with a clever yum plugin that checked a list
of libraries where statics were locally required...pull the srpm..when
the library is updated..rebuild the srpm (using mock of course) in
such a way to produce the static subpackage (which is defined in the
srpm spec but not actually built by the fedora build system) and
install the locally built static subpackage without disturbing the
existing Core/Extras library update? Surely a static subpackage would
not file conflict with the main library subpackage.. nor with the
-devel subpackage.  Why would an epoch boost need to happen at all? 
I'm not talking about replacing any packages... I'm talking about
locally building a defined subpackage that is not carried in the
fedora mirrors.

-jef