static libraries' policy

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 15:05 +0100, Christian.Iseli at licr.org wrote:
> veillard at redhat.com said:
> >   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 agree that a no-nonsense rule would be good.  I still stand by my conviction 
> that static libs should be removed by default.  But I have no problem granting 
> people wanting their packages to be strictly LSB conformant their wish to pack
> the static libs.  I just think they should have given the issues of:
>  - security
>  - bulk
>  - maintainability
> some thought, and have some justification before deciding to pack the static
> libs.

The only outstanding issue here would be how does a package maintainer
decide that their not-in-LSB library is something an ISV would want to
link statically against?  Popularity?  Wait for bug reports?  Ville
mentioned that Mandriva and PLD distribute -static packages; do they do
this for every library or have they evolved some policy to decide when
-static is necessary?

-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/20051114/8b772ced/attachment.sig>