On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 23:02 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > Ed Hill wrote: > > > Is there is a middle ground in this static libs discussion? > > > > For instance, are there technical solutions such as: > > > > - all static libs should or perhaps must be in a -static > > sub-package > > IMO, no point. I disagree. *-static would make packages using these static libs clearly identifiable from examining these packages' spec or src.rpm. "Lumping together" static and shared libs into *-devel, hides away usage of static libs from packaging. > If a packager really wants them, put 'em in -devel. Cf. above. > > - no -static sub-packages are allowed as BuildRequires for > > other FC or FE packages > > In general, agreed. ACK. > > - the -static packages are strictly optional so maintainers > > may provide them or not at their own discretion > > I'd argue the general rule should be that static libs be omitted, unless > there is (very) good reason to include otherwise. ACK. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
