Rex Dieter wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
Eek. I still think headers and api docs and such still should be
in -devel (especially if there's any likelyhood of a real shared lib
existing some day), and that -static should Requires: %{name}-devel
Also I wonder how hard is it to add -fpic -DPIC to the cflags and
change the link command to generate an .so. The only added trouble
would be checking for abi changes on new releases and bumping the
.so name a release.
Exactly. I'm of the opinion (in most cases) that if upstream isn't
able/willing to do something (like generating shared libs), then
neither am I (as packager).
You say "Exactly" as in I agree with you and then you continue with
saying that you're not willing todo this, I'm confused now.
Exactly, as in "The only added trouble..." part. (-:
As I said, if it's really not so hard, let upstream do it, per Fedora's
mantra "Upstream, upstream, upstream..."
Yes,
But sometimes upstream doesn't, because they dont care about this for
example, yet it would still be worth the trouble. I believe this needs
more discussion we all seem to agree that static libs should be provided
if possible, since in most cases even if upstream doesn't do it it isn't
all that much work, why don't we do this.
I'm planning on packaging some software that uses one of these only has
-devel with static libs packages with no .so and I'm actually also
planning on filing an RFE against this package for proper .so files.
Why shouldn't a packager do this? Upstream is what we want, but
unfortunatly is not always what we get.
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
