Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487421 --- Comment #10 from Michael DeHaan <mdehaan@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-02 22:53:44 EDT --- This package has already passed review, so if you want you can bring this up in a seperate defect. This all being said, correctness is good, so I'll quote from the page as I read it: """ * In general, packagers are strongly encouraged not to ship static libs unless a compelling reason exists. """ The word was encouraged, not required. It also says """ There are two scenarios in which static libraries are packaged: """ This package follows scenario 1 of 2: """ 1. Static libraries and shared libraries. In this case, the static libraries must be placed in a *-static subpackage. """ This is what the RPM does. I would also say that when doing the final spec, John could, if he wanted, choose to not build the static package and everything would be ok, it is not highly important to have the static package there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review