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

Re: static libs ... again



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


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