Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))

[Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>]

[Moving this thread to debian-devel ...]
Hi,

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:46:56PM +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 08:59:27AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > 
> > > wait, why would you want to build a static library?
> > > A static library is bad in the context of a linux distribution and
> > > usually brings just pain for usually little gain.
> > 
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-static
> 
> That bit in policy describs how to do it if needed, but it's a usually
> discouradged practise.
> https://wiki.debian.org/StaticLinking  (ok, it's not that explicit, but
> currently I seem to be unable to find any more better doc..)
> 
> long story short: I would not investigate it further, and leave it
> without the static lib.

I came across this question since policy says (see link above) that
static libraries are *usually* provided.  I do not question Mattia's
arguing but if his opinion might reflect a consensus the wording in
policy is IMHO wrong.

I stumbled upon the missing static library since d-shlibmove (from
d-shlibs package) is requiring this static library (since d-shlibs
is implementing library policy).  So if there is some consensus to
drop the static library I'd file a bug report against d-shlibs.

Kind regards

     Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de