$ yum list *-static | wc -l
115
$ yum list *-devel-static | wc -l
8
$ yum list *-static | grep -v devel | wc -l
108

Perhaps I only have a nit-picky day, but

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries

clearly mentions *-static as in foo-static - and not foo-devel-static.
Could this part of the guidelines be clarified, please?

Related to this ambiguity in the naming guidelines, it's kind of pointless
if some packages start creating -static subpackages, which provide a
virtual -devel *and* a virtual -devel-static package in addition to a
shared library base package. Effectively, it implies that another
package could "BuildRequires: libfoo-devel" for _static_ linking even
if a shared library is available. This is exactly what the old guidelines
wanted to avoid (by separating -devel and -static subpackages).

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 06:19:41PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> $ yum list *-static | wc -l
> 115
> $ yum list *-devel-static | wc -l
> 8
> $ yum list *-static | grep -v devel | wc -l
> 108
>
> Perhaps I only have a nit-picky day, but
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
>
> clearly mentions *-static as in foo-static - and not foo-devel-static.
> Could this part of the guidelines be clarified, please?

There should be no foo-devel-static. But I am not sure that there is a need
to change the guideline since it doesn't mention the devel-static
possibility.

At some point this was unclear and some devel-static packages were done,
but hopefully this is a thing from the past.

> Related to this ambiguity in the naming guidelines, it's kind of pointless
> if some packages start creating -static subpackages, which provide a
> virtual -devel *and* a virtual -devel-static package in addition to a

This should never be the case. Fist there should not be any -devel-static
package, and second the -static package should not provide a virtual -devel
if there are shared libraries.

But once again, I think that the guidelines are clear on that subject:
# Static libraries and shared libraries. In this case, the static libraries must be placed in a *-static subpackage. Separating the static libraries from the other development files in *-devel allow us to track this usage by checking which packages BuildRequire the *-static package. The intent is that whenever possible, packages will move away from using these static libraries, to the shared libraries.

--
Pat

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 19:00:50 +0100, Patrice wrote:

> There should be no foo-devel-static. But I am not sure that there is a need
> to change the guideline since it doesn't mention the devel-static
> possibility.

So, we should get rid of the six remaining -devel-static packages then.
One is in F12 "updates", btw. One at RPM Fusion.

Though, without hanging around on IRC I still don't know whether I could
simply go ahead and fix the packages for F13 devel or if this would be
a case of filing tickets and waiting many months for a reaction.

> But once again, I think that the guidelines are clear on that subject:

Well, I do too, but that's the theory only as I've found two review
requests that create the full set of libfoo, libfoo-static + virtual
libfoo-devel and libfoo-devel-static in libfoo-static.

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 19:00:50 +0100, Patrice wrote:



There should be no foo-devel-static. But I am not sure that there is a need
to change the guideline since it doesn't mention the devel-static
possibility.



So, we should get rid of the six remaining -devel-static packages then.
One is in F12 "updates", btw. One at RPM Fusion.

Though, without hanging around on IRC I still don't know whether I could
simply go ahead and fix the packages for F13 devel or if this would be
a case of filing tickets and waiting many months for a reaction.


I'd file the bugs, explain the problem, and include a short-ish timeline
in which you expect a response or will make the change yourself. I say
2 weeks, unless the maintainer has something listed on the Vacation wiki
page. Then, if the don't reply, they were warned, just do it and take
care of any deps.


My $0.02.

-J

But once again, I think that the guidelines are clear on that subject:



Well, I do too, but that's the theory only as I've found two review
requests that create the full set of libfoo, libfoo-static + virtual
libfoo-devel and libfoo-devel-static in libfoo-static.

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging




--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Another issue:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=Violation+of+the+Packaging +Guidelines+

A couple of -devel packages that provide virtual -static packages and
include both the shared and static build of the same library.

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging