Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
As promised, here is my new proposed draft for handling static libs: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLibraryPolicy I know that it won't make everyone happy (it doesn't just leave static bits in -devel), but we really do want to track who is building against static libraries.
From item #2: """If the *-static-noshared package is no longer necessary, it should be removed, and Provided/Obsoleted by the *-devel package (not by the *-static package).
"""I don't think we want to be Providing *-static-noshared in this case although the Obsolete makes sense.
From item #3: """When a package only provides static libraries you can place all the static library files in the *-devel subpackage. When doing this you also have to have a virtual Provide for the *-static and *-static-noshared packages:
"""It seems like we should only have a Provide for *-static-noshared as this is a special case of item #2. Thoughts on that?
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
