On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at> wrote:
> Jon Ciesla wrote: > > I see no reason not to keep dietlibc around for development use, but I'd > > rather see packages use glibc. > > We agree then. But if we want to keep dietlibc, it needs to be fixed to > comply with the packaging guidelines and best practices, i.e.: > * Shared library build needs to be enabled. I see no reason to build this > library as static only as Enrico is doing. We tolerate this where upstream > does not support shared builds at all, but this is not the case here. > * The main package should contain the shared library (and the documentation > that's relevant at runtime, in particular COPYING) only. Right now it > contains some stuff which probably belongs into -devel. > * The main package must not require -devel as it does now. > * The -devel package should not contain the static library, which should > instead be in a -static subpackage. > * The -lib package (which is currently not built by default, it contains > the > shared library if you enable shared build) should simply be the main > package. It doesn't make sense to have a -lib subpackage of a library. > * The -header subpackage should really be called -headers (There's more > than > one header! And it'd also be consistent with glibc.) or folded into -devel > (though then it can't be noarch anymore). > > Excellent, can you file all of this as a BZ against dietlibc so we can track it, and not rely on my imperfect memory? I don't want to miss a thing*. -J *No singing! > Kevin Kofler > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------------ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
