Spec URL: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/packages/xtide/SPECS/libtcd.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/packages/xtide/SRPMS/libtcd-2.2-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: libtcd provides a software API for reading and writing Tide Constituent Database (TCD) files.
* name right * follow guidelines, legible * license is free software, COPYING included * source match upstream d6cfa1b0d808d5772c9b2798b8a90df0 libtcd-2.2.tar.bz2 * %files section right * library properly packaged * directory owning is right As I said in another post I think that in this a case where keeping the static library makes sense since it could be used to handle trusted data in numerical experiments where compiling statically enhance portability. You can keep it out, as long as you respond favorably to users asking to have it back. APPROVED
* Rebuild for FE-devel succeeded. * SyncNeeded is requested for FE5/6. Now I close this bug as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE. Thank you.
(In reply to comment #1) > As I said in another post I think that in this a case where > keeping the static library makes sense since it could be used to > handle trusted data in numerical experiments where compiling > statically enhance portability. You can keep it out, as long as > you respond favorably to users asking to have it back. Pertusus, please carefully read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage
I know that perfectly. If your point is that a static library should be in libtcd-static, I agree, this is better. If it is another issue, please read the thread https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-November/msg00713.html All the points listed in Motivations are moot in case of the use I point out. And I will never ask FESCO about whether static libs should be shipped or not. I trust better my own judgment in that case, and I don't want to use FESCO time on reviews, they already have enough things to do.