Re: Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 06:03:26PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Imho, if static libraries, are shipped we should be conservative about
> them (e.g. do it pretty much for libc only to compile minimal
> freestanding bootloaders and that's about it).
> Or for example do split them into a separate link path, or separate
> package - since it would also require Built-Using stanzas. If one
> build-depends on static library package, and doesn't generate
> Built-Using something fishy is going on.
> Anything leaf, or beyond minimal/core libraries, really has no need
> for static libraries. And definitely none of the TLS or crypto
We all agree that Debian packages should only use static libraries in
exceptional situations; a Linian check against using them would be useful (and
perhaps it already exists?) The exceptional situations can use overrides.
But that doesn't mean we should prevent our users from using them. Some want
to, and they have their reasons for it. We should explain that shared
libraries are better in most cases, but if they aren't convinced, we should let
them do what they want.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----