[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:

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).

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.

Exactly, as in "The only added trouble..." part.  (-:

As I said, if it's really not so hard, let upstream do it, per Fedora's mantra "Upstream, upstream, upstream..."


But sometimes upstream doesn't, because they dont care about this for example, yet it would still be worth the trouble. I believe this needs more discussion we all seem to agree that static libs should be provided if possible, since in most cases even if upstream doesn't do it it isn't all that much work, why don't we do this.

I'm planning on packaging some software that uses one of these only has -devel with static libs packages with no .so and I'm actually also planning on filing an RFE against this package for proper .so files.

Why shouldn't a packager do this? Upstream is what we want, but unfortunatly is not always what we get.



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