On Tuesday 17 February 2009 11:37:27 pm Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Conrad Meyer wrote: > > On Tuesday 17 February 2009 10:52:50 pm Jesse Keating wrote: > >> On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 23:23 -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > >>> I don't have a good way to search for static linking without examining > >>> bins, but I've got a cold and feel like utter poo, so maybe I'm missing > >>> something! > >> > >> I think when the static guidelines were put in place, it was so that we > >> could easily discover the static packages, this being one of the > >> reasons. > > > > Could it be as simple as anything BuildRequiring *-static? > > Theoretically, yes. Unfortunately, there seem to be some packagers who > seem to be unwilling to accept *-static. > > Ralf The guidelines say that any package providing static libs needs to Provides: - static subpackages, and that packages linking with static libs at compile time need to BR the -static subpackage, not -devel (even if it's the same package). Thus any package not doing this needs to be fixed. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
