On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:41:19 +0100, Ralf 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. News in the bz ticket. Btw, only binutils itself is linked shared with the two troublesome libs. Here's the list of packages in F-12 that "BuildRequires: binutils-devel" with an unknown purpose: $ repoquery --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo='*source*' --srpm --whatrequires binutils-devel --qf "%{name}"|sort|uniq alleyoop avarice CodeAnalyst-gui eclipse-oprofile gcl kdesdk kernel ksplice latrace libdwarf lush mutrace oprofile pfmon sblim-wbemcli stapitrace sysprof -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
