On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 14:17 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > 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? > > > > I actually think we only should have a Provide for *-static, so that people who > want to use static libs now and in the future (when there may be a shared > version) , can guarantee they will get the static version by BuildRequiring the > -static, since very few packages will ever have a real *-static-noshared, > having a virtual provides for this feels wrong. The problem is two-fold: 1. We want to be able to track when packages are building against static libraries, whether they are static or static-noshared. 2. When a package goes from only providing static libraries to providing some shared libraries (but not all), we want to be able to track these. If we have these packages BuildRequire the static provide, that won't be correct anymore (we want them to use the shared libraries + static-noshared). Realistically, what Toshio says is correct, we strictly speaking only need the Provide for *-static-noshared there. I kept the other *-static provide since it is how we used to do it. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
