Created attachment 1063306 [details] patch for creating a static package Static libraries are useful in certain cases. I've attached a patch for creating a static package. In the meantime, if anybody wants, here is a copr repo with libssh2-static https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/hmaarrfk/fedora-static/
Hello Mark. Fedora guidelines strongly encourage package maintainers not to ship static libraries unless a compelling reason exists. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries I'd like to know what reason made you to introduce the static bzip2 library. Please, tell me. Thanks, Jaromir.
I'm currently working on a project where a statically linked version of qemu would be very helpful. The reason for this is that I require to chroot and run a qemu executable. If qemu is not statically linked, I will need to copy in a large (unknown) amount of libraries into the new chroot. Thanks for your help. Side note: I understand the desire to not have static libraries in the -devel packages, but having a seprate -static package is not a big deal. Developers can decide if statically linking is useful for their applications. As a Fedora user, I find the lack of availability of -static libraries to be a barrier when moving from a Debian based distro. Is there somewhere I can more formally make this point?
An other note, I'm not sure of the necessity of this specific statically linked library for what I need from qemu-arm-static. You can target this bug against F22. In the case that I don't get back to you with the necessity of this -static package, this bug will be squashed.
(In reply to Mark Harfouche from comment #2) > As a Fedora user, I find the lack of availability of -static libraries to be > a barrier when moving from a Debian based distro. > > Is there somewhere I can more formally make this point? Well, I would start with one of the following three ways ... 1.) Message sent to the fedora devel list https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel 2.) FPC ticket (as FPC determines the packaging guidelines for Fedora) https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ 3.) FESCo ticket (as FESCo handles the process of accepting new features) https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ Hard to guess which one is the best ... If you want to discuss the topic, I would start with the devel list.
Thanks Jaromir.
We have one more user asking for bzip2-static. I'm building the package.
Merging to f23 as it is requested there.
bzip2-1.0.6-19.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-be3a6f6ed8
bzip2-1.0.6-19.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update bzip2' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-be3a6f6ed8
bzip2-1.0.6-19.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
This needed to be reopened (not sure if ON_QA is the correct status - please change if necessary) since -19 is no longer in F23 stable (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292914#c5 ). I would recommend you ask dgilmore to fix, rather than push a bumped version, as the libpng packager did, so as to avoid having to do testing over again.