On 7/26/05, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. That's the big concern here right.. if statics are going to be used, then there needs to be a way to quickly identify packages that are using static libs so when there is a problem in the lib that demands an update people can have high confidence in systematicly finding packages that a rebuild against the updated static. Is a BuildRequires for a "-static" subpackage good enough to generate high confidence when doing this sort of audit? I'm not sure this goes far enough.. Don't some srpms contain the sources for a specific version of a library to build statically against at build time? So they wouldn't actually be using a BuildRequires at all. -jef
