On 02/09/2010 05:11 PM, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
> On 9.2.2010 17:01, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:52:13 +0100, I wrote:
>>> * Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX:
>>> I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored.
>> Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close
>> something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face.
>> "They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub Jelinek
>> added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
If there is something which doesn't make sense, then it's their rationale:
* They already ships shared libs.
* Unless packages already apply special preparations for static linkage
against binutils' libraries, these package already will be dynamically
linked against binutils' libraries.
=> In most cases, ABI breakages will already happen, whether or not they
ship their libs in monolytic or static packaging.
* The number of users of binutils' libraries is very small (I would
guess << 10). So, should a static/devel spilt have any impact at all,
then the impact would a one time change to very few packages.
> Indeed, surprising
Really? I can't find anything surprising in this response at all.
It's a feature: "experience the contact with RH devs" used to be
advertised as part of the "Great Fedora experience"
packaging mailing list