Hi Michael, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> writes:
Hi,
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019, Simon Lees wrote:
On 16/07/2019 05:41, Kyrill Detinov wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:08:52 +0000 Dan Cermak wrote:
How about we follow what Fedora does
Again and again I see: "Fedora does…". Why do we need to follow Fedora every step?
We are openSUSE! We have a good practice as it is in our distribution.
We don't, but the more core stuff like packaging that we do in as close a way as possible, the less effort required for everyone involved, especially those working across both distros.
Indeed. And in this particular case we already do mostly what Fedora (or Debian for the matter) does re static libs: namely put them into their own package or into the -devel package. (I.e. not what Dan thought Fedora does).
Yes, I've misunderstood the whole thing and would like to apologize for the resulting noise on this list.
I feel Dan wants to talks about some very specific static libs, not about all of them (for which we don't want to change anything for exactly the reasons already mentioned in this thread). Some static libs that he (and others?) call bundled. I admit I don't know what that should be, and why they would be handled different from normal static libs (i.e. be frowned upon generally). So, if anything, Dan needs to explain in more detail what he wants, for which things and for which reasons.
My proposal was prompted by the exiv2 package: exiv2 bundles the XMP SDK from Adobe (mostly due to historical reasons), builds a static library out of it and links against the resulting libxmp. This static library has to be shipped too, as anything linking against libexiv2 should also link against libxmp. I thought that it would be useful to put libxmp into the exiv2-devel package and add a Provides: bundled(libxmp) instead of the additional libxmp-static package. But given the reasons that were given, this hardly warrants a policy change and is also here probably not too useful. Cheers, Dan