Bug 454121

Summary: static lib should be in a separate -static subpackage
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Patrice Dumas <pertusus>
Component: rubyAssignee: Jeroen van Meeuwen <vanmeeuwen+fedora>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: tagoh
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: FutureFeature
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-01-22 07:51:52 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 Patrice Dumas 2008-07-04 21:20:24 UTC
Description of problem:

The static library should be in a ruby-static subpackage.
In my opinion it could be called libruby.a (maybe with a
link to libruby-static.a for backward compatibility)
This package should 
Provides: ruby-libs-static = %{version}-%{release}
if you want to be backward compatible.
 
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Akira TAGOH 2008-07-07 00:48:11 UTC
See Bug#428384. -devel package requires the static library to get it working
anyway. I don't think having separate package for the static library does help
something really in this case.

Comment 2 Patrice Dumas 2008-07-08 12:12:18 UTC
I have seen where the static lib is put in the link, but is the static
lib really needed to link against libruby?

Comment 3 Tony Fu 2008-09-10 03:11:05 UTC
requested by Jens Petersen (#27995)

Comment 4 Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client 2009-01-30 12:44:53 UTC
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database.  Reassigning to the new owner of this component.

Comment 5 Mamoru TASAKA 2010-01-22 07:51:52 UTC
This is already fixed (see comments in bug 428384)