On Sunday 14 June 2009 10:25:40 Reinhard Tartler wrote: > Andres Mejia <mcita...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > Also, I see there's an option for building a static library but > >> > doesn't allow it to be built with the shared library. This isn't like > >> > OpenAL Soft where there's no such option and the -DLIBTYPE=STATIC > >> > option has to be passed into cmake. For ALURE, do you have any > >> > objections for installing static libraries alongside shared libraries? > >> > >> My main reservation with static libraries with ALURE (as opposed to > >> OpenAL) is that it shares the same name as the shared lib. If you > >> install both libalure.so and libalure.a, then linking with -lalure will > >> always pick the shared lib AFAIK. Conversely, libalure.a isn't needed > >> for any pre-compiled binaries, and since pkg-config isn't flexible > >> enough to "select" between shared and static, all linking the user does > >> would use the shared lib if it's there. > > > > -lalure would indeed pick the shared lib by default. I will go ahead and > > provide a static library for ALURE in Debian as well. > > May I ask why? For debian, we generally try to avoid static libraries if > there is no good reason for that. If there is a good reason[1] for dong > so, please add a note in the package. If it is only for convenience for > the users, I'd recommend to not ship the .a and .la files at all, since > IME it avoids headaches in the future. > > > [1] good reasons include massive performance gains, extra features, etc.
It's merely for convenience to users. Who's "we" by the way? I see various static libraries on my system alone, including static libs for libc, zlib, libbz2, and freealut, so I'm guessing "we" is not Debian. -- Regards, Andres -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
