Re: Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))
Andreas Tille writes ("Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))"):
> 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.
Static libraries are useful to users who want to build binaries and
then ship them about without all the library clobber. I don't know
how much that happens but when it does happen it's probably people who
are already having some kind of problem.
Overall I do think the costs of providing the static libraries, even
where a shared library is also provided, are justifiable.