Re: yaml-cpp: Better to only build static libraries?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Shaw wrote:
> Per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539386 I've now been
> bitten twice after being asked to update a package in EPEL.
>
> Per this version this was a patch level update but it still breaks
> applications so I'm wondering if it would just be best to only supply a
> static library, at least in EPEL...

I can't speak for EPEL, but in Fedora I'd rather you just bump the soname
and rebuild the applications using the library when it is needed.

That's what I did but on EPEL a lot of people develop their own business applications, which of course I can't and shouldn't rebuild, and in many cases they're "validated" so changing is very painful.

For now I reverted back to 0.5.1 in EPEL (with -static subpackage) and created a COPR for those who want to work with the newer version.

Thanks,
Richard
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux