exists.
In package reviews, package submitters typically don't give any
"compelling reason" for shipping the static libs. That's why many
-static packages are missing.
> Trying to get individual package maintainers to go against the policy
> isn't a helpful way t
"audit" library
that will force the application to exit if it attempts to load a shared
library from outside the packaged directory. This approach is working
for me -- and I *think* it's working for dlopen, but this is untested at
this point (I'll fix it when it breaks...).
No
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 06:32:20PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones píše v Čt 16. 09. 2010 v 17:19 +0100:
> > There are times when static linking is a useful. Robert clearly
> > describes one in his original post.
> Static libraries solve the "unprivileged user" problem only in a
Richard W.M. Jones píše v Čt 16. 09. 2010 v 17:19 +0100:
> There are times when static linking is a useful. Robert clearly
> describes one in his original post.
Static libraries solve the "unprivileged user" problem only in a limited
set of cases.
As soon as any of the libraries needs additional
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 17:19 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> There are times when static linking is a useful. Robert clearly
> describes one in his original post.
Only because we do not (yet) have a good per-user package manager to
make installing the required dynamic libraries, or assembling a
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 06:11:21PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 05:06:20PM +0100, Robert Spanton wrote:
> > I've recently had to link a fair amount of my work statically so that
> > it'll run on a cluster of RHEL machines. Unfortunately, I am just a
> > user of these machi
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 05:06:20PM +0100, Robert Spanton wrote:
>
> So, would be acceptable to register requests for -static package
> variants as tickets on bugzilla? Or is there a better way to try to
> encourage people to generate these packages?
Providing static libraries for user needs like
s on bugzilla? Or is there a better way to try to
> encourage people to generate these packages?
I think the answer is "no": Fedora wishes to discourage static linking.
You can continue to build your own -static packages, or you can install
the libraries you need manually in your home dir
"Bryn M. Reeves" writes:
> On 09/15/2010 05:06 PM, Robert Spanton wrote:
>> So, would be acceptable to register requests for -static package
>> variants as tickets on bugzilla? Or is there a better way to try to
>> encourage people to generate these packages?
> You might find the Fedora packagin
On 09/15/2010 05:06 PM, Robert Spanton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've recently had to link a fair amount of my work statically so that
> it'll run on a cluster of RHEL machines. Unfortunately, I am just a
> user of these machines, and so I don't have the power to get them to run
> Fedora or even to get th
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 05:06:20PM +0100, Robert Spanton wrote:
> I've recently had to link a fair amount of my work statically so that
> it'll run on a cluster of RHEL machines. Unfortunately, I am just a
> user of these machines, and so I don't have the power to get them to run
> Fedora or even
Hi,
I've recently had to link a fair amount of my work statically so that
it'll run on a cluster of RHEL machines. Unfortunately, I am just a
user of these machines, and so I don't have the power to get them to run
Fedora or even to get the admins to install RHEL packages in a timely
manner. Bui
'Neither'? It's not coded to add -static packages. Whether or not that's
a feature can be argued.
Bill
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hi,
I was recently asked why there isn't an fftw-static.i386 on EPEL x86_64,
even though both fftw and fftw-devel are available in both 32- and
64-bits.
Is this a bug in the repo scripts, or an intentional feature..?
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
14 matches
Mail list logo
