[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packaging of static libraries

Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:

> 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.

Actually, if the library is needed in both forms, it's not that bad of an

lothlorien:~$ ls /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/*_pic.a
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libcdb_pic.a  /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libfl_pic.a

> So why prioritize one over the other?

I think that's another good argument for not shipping them at all by
default, and letting the package maintainer choose which to ship based on
the reasons why people actually *want* static versions of that library.
And if no one ever wants them, no one has to go to the work of making
them and we don't have to ship them around to lots of mirrors.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: