Re: Packaging of static libraries
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> On 10/04/2016 08:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Hi,
> > > The only use case I could imagine is to create an executable that can
> > > run outside of Debian.
> Static builds are still common in (parts of) scientific computing.
> Two main reasons:
> (1) When performance matters. Here we need the static library to be
> built without
> position independent code.
That's the funny part. Some use cases require non-PIC static libraries,
and others require PIC static libraries. Should we then ship both? I
think we can all agree that would be terrible. So why prioritize one
over the other?