On 8/14/2019 2:08 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"DS" == David Sommerseth <d...@eurephia.org> writes:
DS> As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static.

Isn't that entirely the decision of those maintaining the package?  It's
still completely reasonable if they want to remove it for no other
reason than it eliminates ten lines from the specfile.  The question was
whether there is any pressing reason to refrain from removing it.

  - J<

Compression libraries are an area where it's common to have special cases that need to bootstrap or otherwise provide a service outside of a sane/guaranteed dynamic library environment. As others have mentioned, this could mean early boot for RH-style systems, but it could be for any other reason for a specific site. zlib-static, bzip2-static, and xz-static have existed for forever, and lz4 should continue to follow suit. (And https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212209 would be nice, since the subject is up.)

If it's removed for the .spec (not just not included in a distro, but removed), then those who'd like to be able to use the package have to maintain a new local fork. That's not ideal.

devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 

Reply via email to