glibc-devel vs. glibc-devel{,-static}
Bill Crawford
billcrawford1970 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 19 10:14:50 UTC 2009
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 21:14:57 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> In principle, libc_nonshared.a etc. all fall under the "what if only a
> static library is provided" policy, so if the guideline was enforced for
> glibc, every single package containing compiled code would need to BR
> glibc-static (or rather glibc-nonshared-static or something like that to
> distinguish it from a true glibc-static subpackage which should be what
> ships libc.a) because it links libc_nonshared.a.
Surely either the compiler, or binutils, would need to have that as a Requires:
rather than every package that's built with gcc (especially since it's not the
program itself that *has* that requirement, it's the toolchain).
> Kevin Kofler
More information about the devel
mailing list