On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 07:37 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 23:12 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> I'd rather just require them to be in -static instead of -static-noshared
> - they can still be tracked that way.
The problem (as described to me) is that if you put them in -static, and
you BR -static, you then potentially link against /all/ the static
libraries, even those that have shared alternatives.
How that? Our rule has been
that *-static must Require *-devel, i.e.
unless a package is playing nasty games with linking (or this packaging
rule is being obeyed), it will always link dynamically.
The motivation was
to isolate the static libraries which have no shared alternative from
those that do.
We can still "track" things which BR -static-noshared just as easily as
we can track those that BR -static.
I still fail to see the usefulness of this.
Our logic had been: Client-packages who intentionally want to link
statically, must BR: *-static, those who don't care should BR: *-devel.
With your approach above, client-packages will have to care about
characteristics of a package providing a static library.
This doesn't make any sense to me on the client-side.
Ralf