https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries does not explicitly state that -static packages should BR -devel packages if needed. I believe they should. An example of confusion: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067475
The wording should state the -static sub-package much require -devel if the -static package is not useful without the -devel sub-package, e.g. the header files are in -devel.
I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure why. I guess BR: foo-static will only very rarely be useful without BR: foo-devel, but then this change would result only in the saving of a line in the spec.
If you want to link against the static library and BR'ed it therefore on purpose, I'd assume that the shared one is not available. Is that a sane assumption to make linking easy to use?
If -static pulls in -devel, one needs to do a bit more work to link against the static one as the shared one should be prefered. Isn't it?
that's not a valid assumption: "I'd assume that the shared one is not available"
We discussed this at today's meeting (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2015-April/010561.html):
Announcement text:
The guidelines for packaging static libraries were amended to indicate that the -static package should require the -devel package: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2 * https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3AGuidelines&diff=409506&oldid=405928 * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/338
Metadata Update from @tomspur: - Issue assigned to tibbs
Log in to comment on this ticket.