[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: static libs ... again



Quentin Spencer wrote:
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181897 for the reasoning. At this point, here are my options:

1. tell the user that static libs are bad and to go use another distro
2. put them back in
3. create a -static package

I'm not going to do option 1.

Corrolary: As I don't understand the users' precise requirements for static libs, perhaps asking them why dynamic linking is not sufficient?

Option 2 seems to be frowned upon, but is there really any official policy against it?

No.

Option 3 has been proposed, but it never seemed like anyone agreed on it. What do you all think I should do.

If you're going to provide the static libs anyway, AFAICT, there's not much point in packaging them separately, so go with Option 2.

-- Rex


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]