On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:20:37PM -0800, 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? No, but I have some scripts built around repoquery that I used to use to verify that library followed the guidelines, that packages with both shared libraries and static libraries had static libraries in a separate subpackage, and that no package was built against static libs except when necessary. It also listed the packages linked against static libraries. The most annoying bug I found that is not already fixed is with libruby having static lib, explained in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428384 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454121 I have also sent all this in a mail I sent after leaving fedora, with the script I used (that needs work). In my recalling there wern't that many static libs used in links, and not that many packages built against static libs. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
