Bill Nottingham wrote:
Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx) said:
Since spot was the person who described it to me, perhaps it would be
best to get his input here. The way he stated it was that if there
were
static libs around at link time, they would get automatically linked,
even if the didn't want them to.
A lot of packages will look first for static libraries, then if (and
only if) they are not found, look for shared libraries. By splitting
into static and static-noshared, we can safely put in -devel and
-static-noshared and avoid this confusion.
That's not the case for anything that just passes -l<foo>. Can't
we just fix those packages?
+1 to bill's comment. I see static-noshared as nothing but a hack to
get around what could/should be fixed in the offending packages.
Unless there is some other purpose to it that I'm missing. Heightened
paranoia, err, verification about what is being statically linked?
-- Rex
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
