On 02/09/2010 05:11 PM, Milos Jakubicek wrote: > On 9.2.2010 17:01, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:52:13 +0100, I wrote: >> >>> * Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX: >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040 >>> I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored. >> >> Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close >> something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face. >> >> "They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub Jelinek >> added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines. If there is something which doesn't make sense, then it's their rationale: * They already ships shared libs. * Unless packages already apply special preparations for static linkage against binutils' libraries, these package already will be dynamically linked against binutils' libraries. => In most cases, ABI breakages will already happen, whether or not they ship their libs in monolytic or static packaging. * The number of users of binutils' libraries is very small (I would guess << 10). So, should a static/devel spilt have any impact at all, then the impact would a one time change to very few packages. > Indeed, surprising:) Really? I can't find anything surprising in this response at all. It's a feature: "experience the contact with RH devs" used to be advertised as part of the "Great Fedora experience" ;) Ralf -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
