SUMMARY: Shipping static libraries

[Loïc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr>]

        Hi,

 The summary of this discussion is along the lines of:
 - static libraries are:
   . not mandatory
   . helpful for a few people
   . harmful for security
 - static libraries are a burden for buildds since they require more
   time and space to build
 - static libraries are taking more place in the archive and on end-user
   systems

 I propose we try having the following approach:
 - it's always up to the maintainer to decide to ship or don't ship the
   static version, but we should try being consistent among packages so
   that one gets a useful set of static libraries, or none
 - if a wishlist bug is opened requesting static libraries, then the
   maintainer should check:
   . the size of the package and the impact on buildds and binary
     packages sizes: if the package is going to take more time and space
     to build, will all buildds be able to follow?
   . the usability of the resulting staic libraries: can a non-trivial
     and useful program be statically linked with the resulting static
     library (especially with respect to dynamically loaded modules in
     libraries loading some modules dynamically)

   Cheers,
-- 
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>