[Fedora-packaging] Another clarification of the static library packaging guidelines

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

"Michael Schwendt" <mschwendt at gmail.com> wrote:
>There are dozens of -devel packages, which contain static libs only,
>but don't provide a virtual -static package.
>
>Many of them are OCaml (ocaml-*) and Haskell (ghc-*) packages.
>
>The Haskell packaging guidelines contain a section that seems to suggest
>that the packages need not provide a virtual -static package:
>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Haskell#Static_vs._Dynamic_Linking
>
>What about OCaml?
>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml
>is not mentioning static libraries at all.
>
>What other exceptions exist?
>

Where did these exceptions come from?

I for one would argue that, just to preserve some sort notion of consistency across packages, such exceptions to the general packaging guidelines should not be allowed.

-- Jeroen