On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:13:41PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:06:51PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > The guidelines intention is to recommend "foo-static". > > Ok, so what about rpmlint warnings? Ignore them or bugzilla rpmlint? IIRC Ville wanted to speak with upstream to allow *.a in *-static. Maybe he'll comment on what rpmlint currently does and whether upstream perhaps rejected this, or perhaps whether my memory is segfaulting. :) > > *-static is supposed to be what you seem to prefer to call "*-static-devel". > > > > The difference is just the name. > > I don't care about one or the other name, but rpmlint does. What does rpmlint say? I think the idea was to have all, but static libs in *-devel and *.a in *-static. > > > (But there are cases when user should be able to link > > > against static libs, a prominent case -- my case -- being numerical > > > models). > > You know my opinion on this argument of yours: You are abusing Linux. > > Not at all. I have specific needs. I think Ralf means that you are abusing Linux by computing numerical models and doing serious number crunching. Go play a game ;) (P.S. there is a smiley, but nevertheless: the above is a joke!) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpVvE45WPTDV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
