On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 08:44:47PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > Axel Thimm wrote: > >> +1, although it would be a good idea to put the static libs in a > >> seperate sub package. ( /me has no need for such a beast) > > > > Have you seen Dmitry Butskoy's post on this? He has created debuginfo > > macros that automatically cater for that (packages are then named > > foo-static, but that's tunable) w/o any changes in existing > > specfiles. > > > > Yeah I've seen that but I'm not sure if I like that, thats because I'm > not sure if we should offer static libs for all packages or only for > certain ones (like glibc, libstdc++, some standard X11 libs) The decision whether to offer static libs is still the specfile's, the intersting part is to have any remaining *.a file autopackage itself into these *-static packages w/o any hassle from a packager's POV. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpXTcC22VIBI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
