The package is in need of an update because it does not adhere to the guidelines for packaging static libraries: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries The -devel package contains both the shared and the static build of a library. That makes it possible to link statically with the -devel package as a build requirement instead of having to build-require a special-purpose -static subpackage. Correct would be to either disable/delete the static libraries at build-time, or to %exclude them in the %files section, or to split off a -static subpackage (if there is a compelling reason as why the static libs should be made available). Please consult the guidelines for the details. [...] binutils-devel /usr/lib/libbfd.so <=> /usr/lib/libbfd.a /usr/lib/libopcodes.so <=> /usr/lib/libopcodes.a
The binutils API is considered to be too unstable for dynamic use. Hence most packages that use the BFD or OPCODES libraries will require the static libraries.
Please follow the guidelines.
They don't make any sense for binutils.
Jakub, could you please provide any explanation to why the static libraries couldn't be split into a -static subpackage to conform, like any other package, to the current guidelines? Thanks
Because the -devel subpackage, which would provide libbfd.so/libopcodes.so would necessarily need to Requires: binutils-static, as libbfd.so/libopcodes.so are linker scripts that include libbfd.a resp. libopcodes.a together with libraries they need. So, while it is technically possible to split it, it wouldn't just cause bloat and wouldn't do any good.
Nebulous. Are you trying to say that libbfd.so/libopcodes.so are ld scripts and can only be used to link statically? If so, they belong into a binutils-static package despite their .so file extension. Or else this would be static linking in disguise, which would violate the guidelines and the goal of being able to track builds that explicitly want to link statically.
Still reproducible. Reopened by: fedora-report-static-batch.py binutils-devel /usr/lib/libbfd.so <=> /usr/lib/libbfd.a /usr/lib/libopcodes.so <=> /usr/lib/libopcodes.a
Hi Michael, Would you care to try out the binutils-2_20_51_0_2-15-fc13 rpm in rawhide ? I have split off the static libraries into a separate binutils-static package as per the Packing Guidelines, although I am not sure how many other packages this is going to break. Cheers Nick
Well, if you would like me to test something instead of relying on a tool to close/reopen this ticket, how about a reply to comment 6? $ rpmls -p binutils-devel-2.20.51.0.2-15.fc13.i686.rpm|grep so -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/libbfd.so -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/libopcodes.so These are customised for linking statically, so why not move them into the -static package as well? [...] The list of src.rpm packages, which directly "BuildRequires: binutils-devel", is this: $ repoquery --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo='rawhide-source' --srpm --whatrequires binutils-devel --qf '%{name}'|sort|uniq alleyoop avarice CodeAnalyst-gui eclipse-oprofile gcl kdesdk kernel ksplice latrace libdwarf lush mutrace oprofile pfmon sblim-wbemcli stapitrace sysprof The list of packages, which refer to -lbfd or -lopcodes somewhere in their build.log, is this: avarice CodeAnalyst-gui eclipse-oprofile gcl ksplice lush mutrace oprofile stapitrace They certainly need to add "BuildRequires: binutils-static" in accordance with the guidelines. As whether the remaining packages really need to BR binutils-devel, e.g. for just the headers, or whether perhaps their build.log is too quiet, remains to be examined.
Closed by: fedora-report-static-batch.py
Still reproducible. Reopened by: fedora-report-static-batch.py Build: binutils-2.20.51.0.7-3.fc14.src.rpm binutils-static /usr/lib/libbfd.so <=> /usr/lib/libbfd.a /usr/lib/libopcodes.so <=> /usr/lib/libopcodes.a
Reopened by: fedora-report-static-batch.py Build: binutils-2.20.51.0.7-4.fc14.src.rpm binutils-static /usr/lib/libbfd.so <=> /usr/lib/libbfd.a /usr/lib/libopcodes.so <=> /usr/lib/libopcodes.a
It is not a bug, fix your script.
Reopened by: fedora-report-static-batch.py Build: binutils-2.20.51.0.7-4.fc14.src.rpm binutils-static (!) PROVIDES binutils-devel /usr/lib/libbfd.so <=> /usr/lib/libbfd.a /usr/lib/libopcodes.so <=> /usr/lib/libopcodes.a