Re: Policy should require _pic libraries for static-only libraries
Roger Leigh wrote:
> 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?
People building binaries that should work cross-distribution, so they
need to be statically linked? This would be particularly important for
proprietary apps (a lot of libraries are LGPL so this is often permissible).
Actually I agree with you, and I'm not of the opinion that most packages
need to ship a static library; just trying to play devil's advocate.
IMO most static libs could be removed from the archive and then added
back only on an as-needed basis (e.g. if someone files a bug report
requesting one).
Do most -dev packages even make much sense without any static libraries?
They usually include the static lib, a few kB of header files, and the
libwhatever.so symlink. Without the static lib the -dev packages become
quite small, and one has to wonder if there would be a less
Packages-bloating way to distribute the header files and symlink than
the division specified by policy. Put them into the lib package, with
the header files in versioned directories and the symlink managed by
alternatives for purposes of parallel lib soversion installability?
Changing to that system would be a hell of a long and difficult
transition though.
regards,
--
Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu> Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544
Reply to: