On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 01:10 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 03:59:32PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 00:32 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > static subpackages have been discussed a bit in the recent past, but > > > not by the packaging group. > > > Actually, I think we voted on this: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage > > > > My memory is backed up by the status on: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo > > Oops, sorry I must have missed that meeting and I'm spreading lies now > (I thought I had checked all available minutes when I couldn't make it > to a meeting). > > But it only contains a proposal on the naming of the package, some > parts like the intradependencies of subpackages should also be part of > the guidelines. This was intentional - I wanted us to focus on "-devel" and "-static" and to prevent us from getting lost into discussions on details. > Maybe Ralf could extend this part? Could be done - C.f. my other mail. I could add this as a "recommendation section" to the proposal, if there should be consensus about this. However, I don't want to end up in threads discussing all glory details of sorting out "shared/commons" packages or to see people starting nit-picking on package names, packages might have inherited from their history, nor do I see much use in us trying to detail all implications this might have on packaging in practice in advance. If there should be problems, they'll pop up sooner or later and can be solved then. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
