On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 07:37 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 23:12 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > I'd rather just require them to be in -static instead of -static-noshared > > - they can still be tracked that way. > > The problem (as described to me) is that if you put them in -static, and > you BR -static, you then potentially link against /all/ the static > libraries, even those that have shared alternatives. How that? Our rule has been that *-static must Require *-devel, i.e. unless a package is playing nasty games with linking (or this packaging rule is being obeyed), it will always link dynamically. > The motivation was > to isolate the static libraries which have no shared alternative from > those that do. > > We can still "track" things which BR -static-noshared just as easily as > we can track those that BR -static. I still fail to see the usefulness of this. Our logic had been: Client-packages who intentionally want to link statically, must BR: *-static, those who don't care should BR: *-devel. With your approach above, client-packages will have to care about characteristics of a package providing a static library. This doesn't make any sense to me on the client-side. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
