Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))
- To: Debian Developers <email@example.com>
- Cc: Debian Science List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))
- From: Andreas Tille <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:09:40 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20160128130940.GI18926@an3as.eu>
- In-reply-to: <20160128124656.GB7503@chase.mapreri.org>
- References: <20160127173547.GA31761@an3as.eu> <20160127222030.GB8377@chase.mapreri.org> <20160128075927.GB18926@an3as.eu> <20160128124656.GB7503@chase.mapreri.org>
[Moving this thread to debian-devel ...]
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.