Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487421 --- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) <[email protected]> 2009-03-02 23:40:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > This package has already passed review, so if you want you can bring this up > in > a seperate defect. This all being said, correctness is good, so I'll quote > from the page as I read it: sure I will. > > """ > * In general, packagers are strongly encouraged not to ship static libs > unless a compelling reason exists. > """ > > The word was encouraged, not required. It also says > So I was interested to know that "compelling reason" which made static libraries to be shipped. > """ > There are two scenarios in which static libraries are packaged: > """ > > This package follows scenario 1 of 2: > > """ > 1. Static libraries and shared libraries. In this case, the static > libraries > must be placed in a *-static subpackage. > """ > > This is what the RPM does. I would also say that when doing the final spec, > John could, if he wanted, choose to not build the static package and > everything > would be ok, it is not highly important to have the static package there. So you are asking to remove .a files from -devel? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
