static libs ... again

[Denis Leroy]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 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?

I've also had a request for reinstating static libs :

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178853

I can see how profiling is important here, especially libsigc++ which is 
a low-level library that is typically used all over C++ code...

-denis