Bug 486593
| Summary: | static libs in *-devel | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ralf Corsepius <rc040203> |
| Component: | bzip2 | Assignee: | Ivana Varekova <varekova> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | high | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | jakub, tmraz, varekova |
| 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: | 2009-03-17 07:53:13 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: | |||
Ping? It's been ca a month since filing this BZ, but you preferred not to respond. That said, I am going to launch an AWOL process against you, Ivana Varekova. I am going to launch an orbital laser at you Ralf as soon as you go on a longer vacation! Hello, you are right the bzip2-devel should not contain *.a library, thanks for the bug reporting. But the response time from my side is not because of I preferred not to respond. I was ill almost half of the month and in my buffer there accumulate some more priority problems which I have to fix, before this bug. I will do it next week. (In reply to comment #2) > I am going to launch an orbital laser at you Ralf as soon as you go on a longer > vacation! Well, instead of shooting at me you could have responded to the BZ and/or taken care about this problem, could you? Fedora should be about collaboration, not about isolation, my friend! (In reply to comment #3) > But the response time from my side is not because of I preferred not to > respond. I was ill almost half of the month and in my buffer there accumulate > some more priority problems which I have to fix, before this bug. Thanks, for clarifying ... I was under the impression this was one of those cases of @RH's ignoring Fedora, many independent Fedora contributors are used to. I am glad to be corrected in your case. > I will do it next week. Thanks. Fixed in bzip2-1.0.5-5.fc11. (Static library was removed at all.) |
Description of problem: bzip2-devel still constains static libs and doesn't even provide bzip2-static = %{version}-%{release} This violates the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Current rawhide, i.e. bzip2-1.0.5-3.fc10 Actual results: - bzip2-devel contains /usr/lib/libbz2.a - No rpm provides bzip2-static Expected results: - libbz2.a to be moved to a package named bzip2-static - A package to provide "bzip2-static" Additional info: The upcoming GCC44 mass rebuild is an ideal point in time to shake out the issues which this split may have.