[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: static libs ... again

Subject: Re: static libs ... again
From: Orion Poplawski
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:53:05 -0700
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 07:10 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
One question to beg here... I maintain several libraries that come *only* as static libs(*). At the moment, these pkgs provide *only* a -devel pkg (pending upstream fix(es) to allow for shared/dynamic libs). Is that acceptable or should these get split too?
Not split, but renamed would be a good so replace -devel with -static.
ACK, plus letting -static provide -devel.

For packages having both static and shared libraries I'd, put
everything but the static libs into *-devel and let *-static "Requires:

[BTW: we had discussed this in great dep several months ago on one of
this too many fedora lists.]

Eek. I still think headers and api docs and such still should be in -devel (especially if there's any likelyhood of a real shared lib existing some day), and that -static should Requires: %{name}-devel
Hmm, headers without libs in most cases are useless, but shipping docs
in *-devel, even for -static only packages is worth a thought. I am not

Not sure who I'm agreeing with here :-), but:

- Put static libs in -static (so they don't get used accidentally)
- Keep -devel for headers and shared libs (if existing)
- -devel requires -static if no shared libs so that dependent packages only use BR: -devel.

Orion Poplawski
System Administrator                   303-415-9701 x222
Colorado Research Associates/NWRA      FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane, Boulder CO 80301   http://www.co-ra.com

fedora-extras-list mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>