https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621
--- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel(a)michel-slm.name> ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6)
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4)
>
> About the static libraries: folly doesn't have a stable ABI, by design, so
> it doesn't seem useful to build shared libraries for it
There are a couple of issues with not producing shared libraries:
* debuginfo subpackages aren't really possible to generate properly with
only static libraries
yeah, debuginfo is disabled for now for folly. Is the concern that packages
built against folly also can't have proper debuginfo?
* it makes it difficult to track things that need to be rebuilt if
folly was
updated
Per policy they're supposed to BR folly-static -- so just searching for those
and rebuilding should be fine, right?
A suggestion for shared libraries support: you can do something like having
the soname change with version bumps to match ABI policy
I suppose we can rename the *.so files manually to *.so.%{flattenedversion} -
though we will have to patch the build system to allow building both static and
dynamic libs in one pass.
(In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #2)
- Why do you leave a 'folly.rpm' just for the License file?
Hmm, yes. I was basing this on boost's spec where the license goes into the
main package, but without shared libs we might as well only have a
-devel/static
- CXXFLAGS should be automatically set by %cmake
I needed to add -fPIC, which is not in the default CXXFLAGS
- Fix Version inside 'libfolly.pc' file.
ack
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component