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. :)
> *-static is supposed to be what you seem to prefer to call
> The difference is just the name.
I don't care about one or the other name, but rpmlint does.
What does rpmlint say? I think the idea was to have all, but static
libs in *-devel and *.a in *-static.
> > (But there are cases when user should be able to link
> > against static libs, a prominent case -- my case -- being numerical
> > models).
> You know my opinion on this argument of yours: You are abusing Linux.
Not at all. I have specific needs.
I think Ralf means that you are abusing Linux by computing numerical
models and doing serious number crunching. Go play a game ;)
(P.S. there is a smiley, but nevertheless: the above is a joke!)
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net