On 8/14/2019 2:08 PM, 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.
- J<
Compression libraries are an area where it's common to have special
cases that need to bootstrap or otherwise provide a service outside of a
sane/guaranteed dynamic library environment. As others have mentioned,
this could mean early boot for RH-style systems, but it could be for any
other reason for a specific site. zlib-static, bzip2-static, and
xz-static have existed for forever, and lz4 should continue to follow
suit. (And https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212209 would be
nice, since the subject is up.)
If it's removed for the .spec (not just not included in a distro, but
removed), then those who'd like to be able to use the package have to
maintain a new local fork. That's not ideal.
-jc
_______________________________________________
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
