Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 08:25:53PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:02:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:32:37AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 11:15:36PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If there are concerns over archive size, why don't we drop all static
> > > > .a libraries at the same time. Given that in Debian we typically
> > > > always link dynamically, is there a need for .a libraries in all but a
> > > > handful of cases?
> > >
> > > Dropping most .a libraries is something I agree with. I see no reason
> > > why we should have them for most of the libraries.
> >
> > As a courtesy to our users. Statically linked programs are slightly
> > faster (since they don't need to do PLT lookups, so they spare a jump on
> > every function call to a shared object). For people for whom performance
> > is critical, providing .a libraries is a good idea.
>
> I agree that for some things it might be useful for have static
> libraries, but in most cases they're not.
It would be reasonable to provide static libraries maybe for some core
libs, where justified interest is there and for libraries user request
them via wishlist bugs, I guess.
Michael
Reply to: