On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 04:34:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> 2) need I create a -static package for the static library?
>
> 3) if yes, should -static have a Requires:
> %{name}-devel-%{version}-%{release}? Should this go in the
> recommendations for all -static packages?
static subpackages have been discussed a bit in the recent past, but
not by the packaging group. IMHO they make sense if static libs are to
be part of the build for whatever reason, but we don't have any rules
about it, not even about the naming, e.g. whether it should be called
foo-static, foo-devel-static, foo-static-devel and so on. At any rate
the "static" subpackage would have to require the conventional devel
package to get access to the headers, so 3) above goes w/o saying.
But first we would need to decide on how to handle static content in
general, e.g. first decide on subpackaging it and then how the
packages are to be handled.
Just to catch any such discussion beforehand: *Whether* something
needs to be statically linked or not, is a policy that is not decided
by the packaging committee - we just consider the *how*s and let the
*why*s to fesco and core. ;)
To cut a long story short: Matt, if you do need a static lib, do as
you please for now - we need to sort it out first, and then we'll tell
you that it needs to be done differently ;)
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpmzIkN2gN0V.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
