Bug 178853
| Summary: | Static libraries have been disabled in the devel package in the latest release. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Alistair Riddoch <alriddoch> |
| Component: | libsigc++20 | Assignee: | Denis Leroy <denis> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | extras-qa, wtogami |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-03-01 07:02:15 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Alistair Riddoch
2006-01-24 21:14:16 UTC
It's a Fedora Extras policy to no longer package the static libraries in devel packages, but the profile build argument is an interesting one. Let me revisit this in the next release... IMHO, profiling is not a good argument because this refers to development of the software and not actual usage. Nothing stops the software developer from building their own static copy of a given library to take part of their own profiling. Maybe the benefits of excluding static libraries outweigh the rare benefit of being able to do this? Right, but aren't devel libraries precisely targeted at developers ?? Alistair, Well this is a bit of a hot/controversial issue, so I've let static libraries disabled by default. However, i added a optional macro to enable them easily, so i would recommend that you recompile your own version of libsigc++ with the command : rpmbuild --rebuild --with static <srpm> |