I'll re-iterate my original request since a package update did occur since then: See http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2071 Especially since no external software in Extras (that I'm aware of) uses libtidy, there's not much point in packaging it separately or including the static lib.
My opinion since http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2071#c2 has not changed. Is the package broken somehow? Is there a real world problem that would be solved by combining the executables and shared libs in one package? I still think that separating them is good packaging practice in general. Why exclude the static lib from this devel package given that including static libs in devel packages is the standard practice elsewhere in the distro and in extras? The vast majority of static libs in FC and FE are not used by other FC/FE packages; that does not make them useless. I'm not going to make potentially backwards incompatible changes purely based on opinions. Such changes need to be backed by strong (usually technical) arguments dictating the necessity. (FWIW, I've heard that Perl bindings to libtidy are in the works.)
Not fair, you've turned my own arguement against me. (-: (--disable-static aside, I care less about that). I would argue that one should not create libfoo subpackages unless there is good reason. In this case, I see no good reason (and maintaining the status-quo isn't good enough either, IMO). Good reasons, in general, include: 1. Do you need multiple versions installed? (no) 2. Do you save (significant) bloat by splitting things and not forcing the whole monolithic package to be installed? (no) 3. Does it simplify package dependancies? (no) By splitting, you're also introducing possible future bloat, as the old libfoo0 will never get automatically removed/upgraded when libfoo1 comes around. Further, I've seen yum buglets appear from extraneous package splitting as well. See http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/repo-coord/2005-January/000450.html as at least one case where Axel's splitting of libfooXX packages has led to yum-bugginess. I don't see how subpackage simplification would incur any breakage of backward compatibility, either, as long as 1. no other packages currently depend on (parts of) this one 2. one carefully uses versioned Obsoletes/Provides. Now, if you still think libtidy is a good idea, that's fine, I'll shut up and go on my merry way.
One more reason: optimization; in some cases building optimized libraries results in improved performance, and it simplifies things to be able to only ship/rebuild only the optimized libs. Yet one more: keeping out unneeded executables from $PATH has marginal value. I get your point, in the end there's not really much gained in the tidy package by separating the libs and executables. But I still happen to think that in general such a split is at the very least worth considering, and more often than not applying. There are many potential good things in that arrangement, and I don't see any real problems with it. (Note that I have not, and don't intend to, go into the libtidyN, libtidyM business unless needed, that's another issue). So, I still fail to see the real need to or benefit of changing things by bundling tidy and libtidy into one package, and won't do that now. Your comments are appreciated though; and I'll reconsider this package arrangement if someone convinces me there's a problem to be solved.