static libs ... again

[Rex Dieter]

Quentin Spencer wrote:
>  See 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181897 for the 
> reasoning. At this point, here are my options:
> 
> 1. tell the user that static libs are bad and to go use another distro
> 2. put them back in
> 3. create a -static package
> 
> I'm not going to do option 1.

Corrolary:  As I don't understand the users' precise requirements for 
static libs, perhaps asking them why dynamic linking is not sufficient?

> Option 2 seems to be frowned upon, but is 
> there really any official policy against it? 

No.

> Option 3 has been proposed, but it never seemed like anyone agreed on it. What do you all think I 
> should do.

If you're going to provide the static libs anyway, AFAICT, there's not 
much point in packaging them separately, so go with Option 2.

-- Rex