Re: Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:38:11PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andreas Tille writes ("Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))"):
> > I came across this question since policy says (see link above) that
> > static libraries are *usually* provided. I do not question Mattia's
> > arguing but if his opinion might reflect a consensus the wording in
> > policy is IMHO wrong.
> >
> > I stumbled upon the missing static library since d-shlibmove (from
> > d-shlibs package) is requiring this static library (since d-shlibs
> > is implementing library policy). So if there is some consensus to
> > drop the static library I'd file a bug report against d-shlibs.
>
> Static libraries are useful to users who want to build binaries and
> then ship them about without all the library clobber. I don't know
> how much that happens but when it does happen it's probably people who
> are already having some kind of problem.
It doesn't have to be a problem. I'm writing an OS for embedded systems and I
simply don't have a dynamic linker (yet). I expect to be able to use Debian to
build software for it, which means I need static libraries.
> Overall I do think the costs of providing the static libraries, even
> where a shared library is also provided, are justifiable.
Agreed. We obviously shouldn't drop shared libraries; static libraries are
extra, not a replacement. The only reason I can see not to ship a static
library would be if for some reason it is hard to generate it. It would still
be nice, but it may not be worth the effort. This is very unusual, however;
AFAIK they are always built easily and just have to be installed into the
package.
The argument I see here ("people shouldn't use static libraries") is not
correct in all situation, and I don't think Debian should make it hard for
people who want to use them. It shouldn't be the default (and it isn't), but
it should be easy.
Thanks,
Bas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=PRGv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: