On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Rüdiger Meier wrote:
Hi,
Even I've tripped over the separated static libc into the new package glibc-devel-static.
reference http://old.nabble.com/glibc-devel-static-coming-to-Factory-tt31860569.html#a...
I think the split itself is a good idea but is the package name well choosen?
Fedora/CentOS/RedHat have made the split into glibc-static
Mandriva calls it glibc-static-devel
Now suse invents glibc-devel-static
IMO this is a pain for people trying to make portable spec files depending on static libc.
So if possible I would suggest to follow Fedora (because they did that already years ago) and rename it to glibc-static too.
-devel is redundant with -static, all static libs are "devel" parts.
So yes, glibc-static would be ok I guess.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther