[Fedora-packaging] Re: Including a static library
Tom 'spot' Callaway
tcallawa at redhat.com
Mon Sep 25 20:40:50 UTC 2006
On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 22:16 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 25 September 2006 at 20:24, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 08:42 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd say packaging static libs into separate *-static packages should be
> > > > made mandatory to
> > > > * make such dependencies apparent (otherwise the next maintainer will
> > > > want to drop them from *-devel and nobody will notice until somebody who
> > > > can't resist linking against them will yell).
> > > > * avoid bloating the distro with unnecessary libs (Almost nobody will
> > > > use them).
> > > > * make packages providing static libs obvious.
> > >
> > > Excellent logic (that I previously totally missed, which I will blame on
> > > insufficient morning coffee). +1 to Ralf's suggestion for -static pkg.
> > +1 from me as well.
> Finally! Let me point out that PLD has been doing that for YEARS.
-static subpackages have always seemed to make sense to me, but it was
pointed out to me originally that increasing the number of subpackages
increases the size of the metadata and makes all yum operations slower.
Thoughts? Perhaps a separate -static repo?
Tom "spot" Callaway || Red Hat || Fedora || Aurora || GPG ID: 93054260
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always
that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence
and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We
will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in
our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended
from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to
associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular."
-- Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954
More information about the packaging