On 14/08/2019 07:49, Igor Gnatenko wrote: Ehm ... This is a _static_ library. Which means you can build against it, uninstall the lz4-static RPM and the built application still runs. What I'm trying to say that, even though no Fedora packages does not have a build dependency on this package, there might be other users of this library which does static builds of some binaries. That said, static builds have their own challenges (mostly security related) - but also use some real cases (like running code during early boot phase before file systems with shared libraries are available). So there been performed a good enough check that "nothing in Fedora depends on [it]"? Also consider that this is the static library is built by default, it is a tiny library which is really fast to build and the built binaries are less than a few megabytes all together. As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static. But I might overlook something. -- kind regards, David Sommerseth

On 14/08/2019 23:08, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: Sure is! Byt I still don't think there's any benefit caring much about an additional sub-package in such a tiny package. In this case the changelog is actually 2/3 of the complete spec file. And these 10-11 lines (including blank lines) related to the -static subpackage are roughly 14% of the "non-changelog" section of the .spec file. But as I said earlier, for static libraries, it is harder to get some kind of usage statistics who uses them or not, as you only need that library during the compile time. So combine that with the effort of reducing the spec file with 10-11 lines, I'm not sure it's such a big difference in maintainability or the efforts required to keep them around. Just my 2 cents. -- kind regards, David Sommerseth