Bug#168435: debian-policy: Remove the requirement to install static libraries
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 04:25:00PM +0100, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> > + All libraries must have a shared version in the
> > + <tt>lib*</tt> package and may have a static version in the
> > + <tt>lib*-dev</tt> package.
>
> > Rationale:
> >
> > The removed paragraph was redundant with the first paragraph of the
> > section and was moved there.
>
> You've made it a violation of policy to *not* provided a shared version
> of a library.
>
> Some libraries aren't intended to have shared versions available.
Agreed. But the current version of the policy already reads:
| In general, libraries must have a shared version in the library
| package and a static version in the development package.
[...]
| All libraries must have a shared version in the `lib*' package and a
| static version in the `lib*-dev' package.
[...]
So, it's already a violation not to provide a shared version. (Which is
admittedly unreasonable.)
> > This policy change would allow maintainers to decide for themselves,
> > whether a static version of their library is useful, thereby decreasing
> > the size of many -dev packages and in turn decreasing download time and
> > archive size. In the rare cases, where a static library is needed and
> > the package maintainer doesn't provide it, the user can either request
> > the inclusion from the maintainer or compile the library his/herself.
>
> The user can do all kinds of things for "hisself" [sic]; Debian tries to
> make such things straightforward.
s/his/him/
I just don't see the reason why we should waste a lot of bandwidth and
storage size just for a hypothetical case. I doubt that there is a
significant number of users that will need static version of most of our
libraries.
Please note that I don't want to remove static versions of libraries
from all development packages. I just want to place the inclusion at the
maintainer's discretion.
> How about a policy proposal that simply clears up the redundancy rather
> than pursuing a private agenda as a bonus?
Since this "private agenda" was why I reviewed the policy section in
question, in the first place, I merged these two proposals. If the
current proposal fails, I will pursue the redundacy cleanup, at least.
- Sebastian
Reply to: