>>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> writes: PD> Here is an updated version of the paragraph about shipping PD> static numerical libs taking into account the comments on the PD> first version. I can get behind this. I have no problem with us shipping static libraries if it helps the users as long as we're not shipping statically linked programs. However, we certainly shouldn't try to "sell" static linking as a general solution, and I don't think this draft does. These two paragraphs can't just be pasted into the existing guidelines, however, as that would result in a somewhat contradictory text. I'd like to see the complete "Exclusion of Static Libraries" section (which will probably need a rename to continue making sense) before we vote on anything. I also wonder if it would be appropriate to include a statement that package submitters should explain in the spec the reason why static libraries are being packaged. - J< -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
