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

Re: Question regarding policy (11.2)



On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:56:48PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
>Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
>
>> However disks are cheap enough that it seems reasonable to ask
>> people doing development to go buy a big disk.
>
>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.

As a rough estimate of the actual size taken up by the static libraries,
here's a random sample from my cache, giving the size in blocks of the
static lib, the total installed size and percentage:

    libapt-pkg-dev[0]             0        312 (0.0%)
    libbz2-dev                   71         88 (81.6%)
    libc6-dev                  3913      13264 (29.5%)
    libdb3-dev                 1242       1360 (91.3%)
    libdb4.0-dev               1018       1164 (87.5%)
    libgdbmg1-dev                50        172 (29.1%)
    libglib1.2-dev              300        620 (48.5%)
    libjpeg62-dev               173        440 (39.4%)
    libncurses5-dev             859       5296 (16.2%)
    libperl-dev                1465       1500 (97.7%)
    libpng2-dev                 241        636 (38.0%)
    libpopt-dev                  32        132 (24.9%)
    libreadline4-dev            350        596 (58.8%)
    libssl-dev                 2121       4940 (42.9%)
    libstdc++2.10-dev           450       1988 (22.6%)
    libstdc++5-dev             1718       4212 (40.8%)
    libtiff3g-dev               359       1256 (28.6%)
    libttf-dev                  231        992 (23.3%)
    libxaw7-dev                 502       1108 (45.4%)
    xlibs-dev                  3882      10284 (37.8%)
    zlib1g-dev                   69        380 (18.4%)
			      19056      50740 (37.6%)

>From that sample, it would seem that static libraries make up less than
half of the -dev package in most cases.

While I've not generally required static libraries myself, there are
some cases where then can be desirable.  Things like libc and ncurses at
least can certainly be useful for building statically linked rescue
tools--bash for example[1].

I can't on the other hand conceive of a reason to statically link a
Gnome program with the ten umptillion libraries that it requires.

Note however that while I may not have a requirement, I can't second
guess the needs of some user who may.

Downgrading 11.2 to "should" rather than "must" is probably a reasonable
change.

--bod

[0] Nice data point Jason.
[1] Debian Trivial Pursuit players out there just itching to scream
    "apt-get install sash!" at this point may save their collective
    breath.



Reply to: