Re: Policy should require _pic libraries for static-only libraries
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:
> Gerrit Pape wrote:
>> I can't see how you justify severity serious, not through policy
>> AFAIK.
> 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?
This seems reasonable for /static-only/ libraries, of which I would
hope there are only a handful in the archive.
My own view is that, at least for the common case, static libraries
don't really serve a useful purpose today; they are rarely used, and
needlessly bloat our -dev packages. Wherever possible, we should be
providing shared libraries instead.
Apart from a few special cases (such as hand-optimised assembly, as
Marco mentioned), who actually needs them?
Regards,
Roger
- --
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFDvoyxVcFcaSW/uEgRAqJKAJ96doIXFP8qMl2uavxLAcIikBXzxgCgsZwY
BltiZqiPRSpo2uaqoplKCnc=
=Mfql
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: