On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 08:44:47PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
>> +1, although it would be a good idea to put the static libs in a
>> seperate sub package. ( /me has no need for such a beast)
>
> Have you seen Dmitry Butskoy's post on this? He has created debuginfo
> macros that automatically cater for that (packages are then named
> foo-static, but that's tunable) w/o any changes in existing
> specfiles.
>
Yeah I've seen that but I'm not sure if I like that, thats because I'm
not sure if we should offer static libs for all packages or only for
certain ones (like glibc, libstdc++, some standard X11 libs)
The decision whether to offer static libs is still the specfile's, the
intersting part is to have any remaining *.a file autopackage itself
into these *-static packages w/o any hassle from a packager's POV.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net