Re: Static libraries in development packages
"Steve M. Robbins" <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 09:55:34AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Given the cost that involves and that nobody has screamed about it in
>> the last 10 years I would opt for rephrasing it to "as needed". The
>> would reflect the current practice best.
> I don't accept either of your premises.
> For my part, I haven't surveyed our users to understand how important
> static linking is. However, I do know of communities that routinely
> build static binaries in order to guarantee reproducibility of data
> analysis results over time -- part of the so-called Reducible Research
> movement .
> Secondly, in my packaging of libraries -- including the monstrous
> Boost -- I supply static libs whereever possible, not "as needed".
> This is how I've always read the current policy and I believe that
> phrase best reflects current practice.
>  http://www.rrplanet.com/reproducible-research-librum/
I'm not saying you should stop doing so. Nor am I saying that for
example glib should start shipping static libs. I'm saying the current
status should be maintained as it seems to work. The users aren't
And that status is more one of "if you feel like it" than one of "do it
unless you see a reason not to". Imho a SHOULD in policy would be too
strong for current practice.