static libraries' policy

[Jose' Matos]

On Saturday 12 November 2005 18:05, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>   A no-nonsense rule is the best, we don't want to add hundreds of -static
> packages, a maintainer may have a good reason to ship static libs, LSB
> being one of them, apparently Chris Aillon gave another example where it's
> required for Mozilla. No static should be a general trend, and for a number
> of libraries it makes sense, but this should not be imposed as an absolute
> hard rule.

  I guess that in this case "no-nonsense" is "common sense". :-)

  I agree that by default the packages should not ship a static library unless 
there is a good reason otherwise.

  It think that this view is consensual, my trouble above is with "common 
sense" and "good reason". As a first step I would trust packagers, it is the 
easiest, if that does not work well... troubles ahead. :-)

  The next step is what is a "good reason"? If necessary this should be 
defined by the steering committee.

> Daniel

  Just my 0.02 €.

-- 
José Abílio