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.
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.)