The saga "binutils does not adhere to Static Library Packaging Guidelines" continues. Temporarily the issue had been fixed, then it has been reverted by adding "Provides" that violate the guidelines again. When I permitted my checker script to reopen the bugzilla ticket, it was quickly closed as NOTABUG this time. binutils : does not adhere to Static Library Packaging Guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556040 The ticket that lead to violating the guidelines again: libbfd.so in binutils-devel needs libbfd.a in binutils-static https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576300 [...] I'd appreciate if the Fedora Packaging Committee discussed this and either officially excludes the binutils package from the guidelines or adjusts the guidelines. To brief all readers: binutils ships shared *and* static libs, but it replaces the *.so files used for linking at build-time with ld scripts that only link statically. It has been said that the library interfaces are not stable enough to link shared. $ rpmlsv -p binutils-2.20.51.0.7-3.fc14.i686.rpm | grep /lib -rwxr-xr-x root root 881172 /usr/lib/libbfd-2.20.51.0.7-3.fc14.so -rwxr-xr-x root root 561296 /usr/lib/libopcodes-2.20.51.0.7-3.fc14.so $ rpmlsv -p binutils-static-2.20.51.0.7-3.fc14.i686.rpm|grep /lib -rw-r--r-- root root 23878 /usr/include/libiberty.h -rw-r--r-- root root 1104328 /usr/lib/libbfd.a -rw-r--r-- root root 271 /usr/lib/libbfd.so -rw-r--r-- root root 274322 /usr/lib/libiberty.a -rw-r--r-- root root 589216 /usr/lib/libopcodes.a -rw-r--r-- root root 202 /usr/lib/libopcodes.so $ cat libbfd.so /* GNU ld script */ /* Ensure this .so library will not be used by a link for a different format on a multi-architecture system. */ OUTPUT_FORMAT(elf32-i386) /* The libz dependency is unexpected by legacy build scripts. */ INPUT ( /usr/lib/libbfd.a -liberty -lz ) $ rpm -qp --provides binutils-static-2.20.51.0.7-3.fc14.i686.rpm binutils-devel = 2.20.51.0.7-3.fc14 binutils-static = 2.20.51.0.7-3.fc14 binutils-static(x86-32) = 2.20.51.0.7-3.fc14 -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
