Re: Re: Including a static library

On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 15:40 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 22:16 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > On Monday, 25 September 2006 at 20:24, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 08:42 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I'd say packaging static libs into separate *-static packages should 
> > > > > be
> > > > > made mandatory to
> > > > > * make such dependencies apparent (otherwise the next maintainer will
> > > > > want to drop them from *-devel and nobody will notice until somebody 
> > > > > who
> > > > > can't resist linking against them will yell).
> > > > > * avoid bloating the distro with unnecessary libs (Almost nobody will
> > > > > use them).
> > > > > * make packages providing static libs obvious.
> > > > 
> > > > Excellent logic (that I previously totally missed, which I will blame 
> > > > on 
> > > > insufficient morning coffee).  +1 to Ralf's suggestion for -static pkg.
> > > 
> > > +1 from me as well.
> > 
> > Finally! Let me point out that PLD has been doing that for YEARS.
> 
> -static subpackages have always seemed to make sense to me, but it was
> pointed out to me originally that increasing the number of subpackages
> increases the size of the metadata and makes all yum operations slower.
> 
> Thoughts? Perhaps a separate -static repo?

To be fair - the yum operations for fc6 should be fairly dramatically
sped up. Menno, Tambet and others have done some really good work to get
rid of slow sections of code or repetitive pieces.

-sv