On 14/08/2019 23:08, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>> "DS" == David Sommerseth <dazo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > DS> As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static. > > Isn't that entirely the decision of those maintaining the package? It's > still completely reasonable if they want to remove it for no other > reason than it eliminates ten lines from the specfile. The question was > whether there is any pressing reason to refrain from removing it. Sure is! Byt I still don't think there's any benefit caring much about an additional sub-package in such a tiny package. In this case the changelog is actually 2/3 of the complete spec file. And these 10-11 lines (including blank lines) related to the -static subpackage are roughly 14% of the "non-changelog" section of the .spec file. But as I said earlier, for static libraries, it is harder to get some kind of usage statistics who uses them or not, as you only need that library during the compile time. So combine that with the effort of reducing the spec file with 10-11 lines, I'm not sure it's such a big difference in maintainability or the efforts required to keep them around. Just my 2 cents. -- kind regards, David Sommerseth _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
