On 28.01.2016 16:06, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:38:11PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> 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.I agree. One should differentiate between Debian packaging and what users of Debian might want to do. For the former there are very good arguments against linking against static libraries, but those arguments don't hold true for the latter - and from a user perspective I have many times been grateful that Debian does ship static versions of most libraries for convenience. So unless there is an _undue_ maintenance burden for building a static version of a given library, I think -dev packages should include them. Regards, Christian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
