[opensuse-packaging] review split glibc-devel-static
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. cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
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 <rguenther@suse.de> SUSE / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer
On Thursday 29 September 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
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.
Maybe one could complain about Packaging guidelines: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Static_Libraries But probably would be good to review that point generally. We have only about 30 packages with substring "static". Some of them are "-devel-static" and some "-static" only. So status quo is a littly inconsistent anyway. What about following fedora where all these packages are simply "-static". For compatibility keeping "devel-static" provides of course. cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Hi, I just forward an old pm to have another reference in this thread. On Thursday 29 September 2011, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 01:56:14 Rüdiger Meier wrote:
So if possible I would suggest to follow Fedora (because they did that already years ago) and rename it to glibc-static too.
Do you think this is possible to discuss again?
Go ahead and discuss on the packaging list.
I made the change since I was told that all static libs should be in "devel- static". We can change that policy - there're only a few packages (run "zypper se devel-static"),
Andreas
cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
participants (3)
-
Richard Guenther -
Ruediger Meier -
Rüdiger Meier