static libraries' policy

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 18:36 +0100, Christian.Iseli at licr.org wrote:
> buc at odusz.so-cdu.ru said:
> > In  other words - what I should do  with static libraries today?
> 
> So far, I have seen pretty good arguments why static libraries should *not* be 
> included by default:
>  - they introduce security risks
>  - they add bulk to devel packages
>  - some features of modern OS/compiler combos only work with shared libs
> 
> I don't think I have seen a good argument why static libraries *should* be 
> included *by default* (except maybe "convenience", but convenience to whom ?).
> 
Daniel Velliard's LSB argument was accepted by Jens as a reason to
modify his original proposal.  I've never looked into the LSB until
today so I'm not certain of the argument but this is what I've found:

  A strictly conforming application shall not require or use any
  interface, facility, or implementation-defined extension that is not
  defined in this document in order to be installed or to execute
  successfully.[1]_

[1]_
http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/application.html

If this isn't the relevant section, Daniel or jens will have to speak
up :-)

> So, my answer to your question: unless you really think static libs are a must 
> for your package, don't package them.

If Daniel's got a valid argument then static libraries have to be
packaged by default.  They don't need to be installed but they have to
be available.  Does moving libraries into -static for FE work?  Or are
we going to run into the same comps maintenence issues that Jeremy
mentions in relation to FC?

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20051112/7cee3d31/attachment.sig>