Shipping static libraries

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

        Hi,

 A while ago, we discussed shipping static libraries for things such as
 gtk.  Sadly, this dicsussion probably happened mainly on IRC, and left
 no track on the consensus.  I don't recall exactly what we reached, but
 I recall that we faced these main issues:

1/ static libraries should be avoided in general, as security support is
   made harder by its use
2/ static libraries are huge in size, especially things such as gtk
3/ static gtk seemed unusable back then

 Josselin underlined that policy says that "The static library
 (libraryname.a) is usually provided in addition to the shared version."
 and added that this implies there's no obligation.

 I think we should have some consistency so that static libs are usable.

 Point 1/ is irrelevant in the discusison of _shipping_ the static libs,
 point 3/ was proved wrong by vorlon who was able to build an app using
 the static gtk version.

 Point 2/ is the hardest as not only archive size is at hand, but also
 buildd disk space (and time) needed to build the static copy.

 I propose we satisfy wishlist requests against smaller libraries such
 as #337025, when that obviously won't cause too much buildd pressure,
 and avoid doing it in the contrary case (eg. gtk or other large
 packages).

   Cheers,
-- 
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
"What do we want? BRAINS!    When do we want it? BRAINS!"