Hi İsmail, İsmail Dönmez <idoenmez@suse.de> writes:
Hi Dan,
On 12 Jul 09:08, Dan Cermak wrote:
Hi list,
I would like to propose a change in our packaging guidelines, specifically the part about bundling static libraries in a *-devel-static subpackage (see: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Exception).
How about we follow what Fedora does and instead of putting the static lib in a subpackages, we put it in the "main" package instead and add a:
Provides: bundled(foo) = $version
into the spec file? The full guidelines are here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries?rd=Packaging:Bundled_Librar...
This has the advantage that we don't have this additional -static package, which is relatively pointless beside keeping track of bundled libraries. Querying the bundled packages can be then done as follows: rpm -qa --qf "%{name} %{providename}\n"|grep bundled
or via zypper: zypper search --provides 'bundled(*)'
I would say the point of the extra -devel-static packages is that, we do not want to provide static libraries unless there are exceptional circumstances (glibc-devel-static). So I'd say this extra hassle is a feature, not a bug.
The point of my proposal was not to make bundling static libraries (or anything else bundled) simpler. Instead I'd like to propose a way how to mark packages that bundle something without creating an additional package that is (imho) relatively pointless, beside existing as a marker (which can be also handled by a single Provides). Cheers, Dan -- Dan Čermák <dcermak@suse.com> Software Engineer Development tools SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany Tel: +49-911-74053-0; Fax: +49-911-7417755; https://www.suse.com/ GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)