On Jan 06, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote: > Good point. Let's amend policy to require that a _pic.a library be provided > for any static-only library; it seems to be an unreasonable omission. I > wouldn't consider a library package which can't be used by any shared library > to be releasable. Would anyone else? It's a bit more complex than this, you can find a summary in http://blog.bofh.it/id_101 . In this specific case, the solutions should be (in order of priority): - remove freecdb from the archive, since there are better replacements (providing a shared library is enough to make them better, at least) - make freecdb provide a shared library (which should be easy, and the opinion of DJB is not really intersting not relevant for our purposes) - make freecdb provide a PIC static library OTOH, the last two points are almost a pointless exercise if there is no actual shared library which needs to be linked against freecdb. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature