Conrad Meyer wrote:
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.
# rpm -qf /usr/lib/libc.a
glibc-devel-2.9-3.i386
# rpm -q --provides glibc-devel | grep static
<no comment>
Ralf
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
