Richard Braakman <email@example.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:56:48PM +0000, James Troup wrote: >> It's not about disks so much as bandwidth. Disk may be cheap, but >> bandwidth isn't, at lesast not universally. I've also no idea who >> would want or need static libraries in this day and age, but maybe I'm >> missing something obvious. > > The main reason is to be able to compile binaries that will run on > a variety of systems. I know I was annoyed at Solaris for not including > static versions of the socket libraries, for example, and I wouldn't > like to inflict a similar annoyance on someone else. Note that, looking at the aspell package, I don't think it has included the static library in years, if ever, but no bug report has ever been filed. Likewise, I would expect that there is little or no demand for static libraries for many packages in Debian. It would make more sense to me to only include static libraries for the important, more commonly-used libraries. -- My secret to happiness... is that I have a heart of a 12-year-old boy. It's over here in a jar. Would you like to see it?
Description: PGP signature