On Friday 20 April 2007, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:13:41PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:06:51PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > The guidelines intention is to recommend "foo-static".
> Ok, so what about rpmlint warnings? Ignore them or bugzilla rpmlint?
IIRC Ville wanted to speak with upstream to allow *.a in
*-static. Maybe he'll comment on what rpmlint currently does and
whether upstream perhaps rejected this, or perhaps whether my memory
is segfaulting. :)
rpmlint 0.80 treats *-static as devel packages, earlier versions don't.