Message-ID: <10825c6f2aff7e0c4db7fef45f4b25132b2735c1.camel@gunduz.org>
Subject: Re:
From: Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCnd=FCz?= <devrim@gunduz.org>
To: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>, pgsql-pkg-yum
	 <pgsql-pkg-yum@postgresql.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 07:59:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAECtzeUZbumKL8SBBUP_HdRVsNStxv1u0Uh9xy1XrpO-ixfBxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CAECtzeUZbumKL8SBBUP_HdRVsNStxv1u0Uh9xy1XrpO-ixfBxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 (3.48.4-1.fc38) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/10825c6f2aff7e0c4db7fef45f4b25132b2735c1.camel%40gunduz.org>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Guillaume,

On Thu, 2023-10-19 at 19:51 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> From rpm/redhat/15/postgresql-15/EL-9/postgresql-15.spec (and many
> other
> postgresql .spec files):
>=20
> # These file(s) should not be packaged:
>=20
> %{__rm} %{buildroot}%{pgbaseinstdir}/lib/libpgfeutils.a
>=20
> I'm wondering why this library shouldn't be packaged? It is definitely
> useful for front-end clients.

This is per Fedora packaging guidelines:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static=
-libraries

...though it is a "should not" item. OTOH, the same guideline if we says
we need to split those files under  -static subpackage, which we don't
ship right now.

Just took a look at Fedora spec file, and they already ship these files
in -static subpackage (we ship them with -devel subpackage as of now)

libpgcommon.a
libpgcommon_shlib.a
libpgport.a
libpgport_shlib.a

but not libpgfeutils.a

Regards,
--=20
Devrim G=C3=BCnd=C3=BCz
Open Source Solution Architect, PostgreSQL Major Contributor
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR