On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 11:53 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 07:10 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > >> Hans de Goede wrote: > >>> Rex Dieter wrote: > >>>> One question to beg here... I maintain several libraries that come > >>>> *only* as static libs(*). At the moment, these pkgs provide *only* a > >>>> -devel pkg (pending upstream fix(es) to allow for shared/dynamic > >>>> libs). Is that acceptable or should these get split too? > >>> Not split, but renamed would be a good so replace -devel with -static. > > ACK, plus letting -static provide -devel. > > > > For packages having both static and shared libraries I'd, put > > everything but the static libs into *-devel and let *-static "Requires: > > *-devel". > > > > [BTW: we had discussed this in great dep several months ago on one of > > this too many fedora lists.] > - -devel requires -static if no shared libs so that dependent packages > only use BR: -devel. This would render the whole purpose of this undertaking absurd. The whole idea is to break compatibility between *-devel and *-static packages, such that packages really _needing_ to link against *static libs can't avoid to 'BR: *-static", while package wanting "any library" will get them through "BR: *-devel", no matter whether they are static or shared. I.e. * For packages providing shared libs and static libs: headers and shared libs in *-devel, static libs in *static, *-static requires *-devel. Using shared libs would imply BR: *-devel. Using static libs would imply BR: *-static. * For packages providing stared libs only: headers and shared libs in *-devel. Using shared libs would imply BR: *-devel. * For packages providing static libs only: Headers and shared libs in *-devel + "Provides: *-static". Using libs would imply BR: *-devel. Packages intentionally wanting static libs would: BR: *-static. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
