Am 15.03.2013 13:56, schrieb Julien Puydt: > a few days ago, bug #702898 asked to add the static libraries to the > libfplll-dev package. Yesterday, I committed a fix to the git repository > for the package. We would not use the static library in Debian, so you don't have to provide it just because a bug requests it. I don't provide static libraries for any of my library packages. I think I originally stopped shipping static libraries, because the library packaging guide [1] suggests to avoid them. Since then I learned that this guide contains some bad advice (naming dev packages libfooX-dev instead of libfoo-dev) and errors (when ABI breakage is "fixed" by renaming libfooX to libfooXsomething and keeping the SONAME, libfooXsomething must not provide libfooX). The guide was removed from Debian for that reason. So I suspect that the guide may just be badly worded and should say "providing *only* a static library should be avoided". Anyway, I also saw other people removing static libraries from dev packages and I'm still comfortable with not providing them, especially for libraries that are not widely used. Any thoughts from other people on this? Cheers, Tobias [1] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#staticonlylibs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature