Hi all, That commit was only to get the shared libraries. It doesn't need the static libraries.
Martin On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 2:22 PM Flavio Leitner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 11:04:01AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 04:32:40PM +0100, Timothy Redaelli wrote: > > > Hi, > > > from commit bc4fd439586f ("rhel: Ship ovs shared libraries, fedora") > > > the openvswitch-devel subpackage (in openvswitch-fedora.spec) > > > stated to include both the shared and static libraries. > > > > > > The problem is that this is against the Fedora Packaging Guidelines > [1]. > > > > > > The guidelines suggest to avoid shipping static libraries if they are > > > not strictly required, so I suggest to drop the static libraries (by > > > passing --disable-static) from openvswitch-fedora.spec (like we do on > > > Fedora [2]). > > > > > > Moreover the libtool archives (*.la) files should not be shipped. > > > > > > If we really want to keep also the static library, we should (in order > > > to be compliant with the Fedora Packaging Guidelines) split the > > > openvswitch-devel package: > > > > > > - The openvswitch-devel package will contain the shared library (.so) > > > and the includes. > > > - The new openvswitch-static package will only contain the static > > > library. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > Seems reasonable to me, but I'm not sure we really need static libraries > > at all. Martin, the cited commit is yours, do you know of a need for > > static libraries? > > It seems reasonable to me as well. > fbl > > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
