On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 10:14 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 15:07 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 11:57:27AM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > > I'd rather not ship them in most cases and not add a package in the case > > > where it might be needed. It ends up leading to a much worse comps > > > nitemare otherwise. > > > > Well, I'd like to be able to link a library statically if I choose to. > > I do not care much if the .a file is in the -devel or a -static package, > > but I'd like to have it. > I think there are plenty of cases at the lower levels of the stack where > it makes sense Well, though I have to agree, there are rare/exceptional cases where static linkage is useful, IMO, as part of a distribution, the downside of shipping (and using) static libs by far outweighs the rare occasions where static libs are useful. > and thus I think they should remain in -devel. I beg to differ, moving static libs to separate packages would make packages using static libs explicit, because their specs would have to have an explicit "BR: *-static" in their spec. As a side-effect, "*-static" rpms to a large extend would render Warren's considerations moot. All in all, I am favor to avoid shipping static libs whenever possible and am in favor of Jens' proposal. Ralf
