Re: Release goal: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
Peter Samuelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> As far as I know, there are 3 ways to handle static linking:
> 1) Document somehow what a real link line will look like, or let people
> figure it out on their own;
> 2) libtool;
> 3) pkg-config.
> So, my upstream does not ship .pc files. I've thought about creating
> my own .pc files and trying to push them upstream, but haven't got
> around to it yet. Therefore, if I empty dependency_libs, anyone
> wanting static linking of my library will have to know, a priori, what
> its dependent libraries are. Is this OK, or should I wait until I have
> time to produce .pc files?
It depends somewhat on the library, but for the average library these
days, I suspect no one is bothering with static linking. There are a few
special exceptions, but it's been quite some time since anyone's asked me
about static linking for any of the libraries I maintain as upstream.
I know of upstreams that have dropped static linking entirely, including
MIT Kerberos. That wasn't a completely uncontroversial decision, and they
may introduce it down the road, but the number of people objecting wasn't
that high and I believe it was entirely people using non-Linux systems.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>