Re: Static libs (was: Re: Approval needed again: SCIM)

[Chris Ricker <kaboom oobleck net>]

On Tue, 17 May 2005, Bill Nottingham wrote:

> Ville Skyttä (ville skytta iki fi) said: 
> > FWIW, you have my +1 on that.  Additionally in the vast majority of
> > cases, static libs wouldn't even be needed in the first place... but
> > suggesting dropping them or disabling the -static subpackages by
> > default, guarded by "--with static" or somesuch rpmbuild flag might be
> > too controversial... or would it, WDYT?
> 
> Most -static stuff can just go away, yes.
> 
> For example, we ship a static libgnome, but no static gtk2. Which
> doesn't really make sense...

For comparison, no static system libraries are available on Solaris 10 and 
prior releases only shipped 32-bit static system libs.... Going that far 
seems a little drastic to me, though -- static linking is sometimes 
useful, such as for chroot simplicity

later,
chris