Bill Nottingham wrote:
Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa(a)redhat.com) 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