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

Re: static libs ... again

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 14:04 -0500, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> Quentin Spencer wrote:
> > So, not too long ago someone asked why I still had static libs in one of 
> > my packages since they are "banned" or at least strongly discouraged, so 
> > I started removing them from my packages. All of the libraries I 
> > maintain are math libraries, so security concerns are a non-issue. After 
> > removing the static libs from fftw-devel, it took less than 24 hours to 
> > get a bug report asking for them back. See 
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181897 for the 
> > reasoning.

> It seems theirs is a rather specific and unique case. Should we change 
> policy to accommodate corner cases like that?
Why? Because a user says he can't build some applications statically?

What kind of rationale is this? Where is the technical explanation?


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