-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 06:03:26PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Imho, if static libraries, are shipped we should be conservative about > them (e.g. do it pretty much for libc only to compile minimal > freestanding bootloaders and that's about it). > > Or for example do split them into a separate link path, or separate > package - since it would also require Built-Using stanzas. If one > build-depends on static library package, and doesn't generate > Built-Using something fishy is going on. > > Anything leaf, or beyond minimal/core libraries, really has no need > for static libraries. And definitely none of the TLS or crypto > libraries.
We all agree that Debian packages should only use static libraries in exceptional situations; a Linian check against using them would be useful (and perhaps it already exists?) The exceptional situations can use overrides. But that doesn't mean we should prevent our users from using them. Some want to, and they have their reasons for it. We should explain that shared libraries are better in most cases, but if they aren't convinced, we should let them do what they want. Thanks, Bas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWrCXyAAoJEJzRfVgHwHE6RRAQAJmUZnP7vU0J9Le9En8LWt3B 6cCtoKgbxRJlkLwjk2XE6Y5SZGblVBtNn4XgrrDCf2wz3QhbW6SQNfP+V77afG1l QwgIYVT5gCnIXyY9E+keyUb8NKOO1IAI82NQJ4MnVFy80peqeHL2Yqj0GloFWv1x xawoCJ2htX+lPXilXgqs87W9ZD3CpM9FzBAVxIrVy7Q7uecPgy19cK2SG9l+R1R/ eLD4OEgczOeI0wLdu9oQSm+/a5Jl07nFB7ABojBMVK23eYiXEqRTzsFxirHXJGyM uygE6V7dlM0HT2IGAd9EGFg11x7SGrw+6Cfbg1tDXhBTAozGNYUgLJm9cGijxm8x N22O4iclPjcc4JV/gwnycC3vD8Xs62qiq9jd2HL8JbnHd8w277OD/dhyBKUlAnSo zJObXI7rQIyD1RAwe9pteir0edgVzbWaJJEXvmQAkj+jKGsKMw6586ZejWMombcm 6iTdUsmwQmlf5z5GnZ/VCJTkDI6d6+jf1tKoG3A93z1dPvE4m8lvJyzcmcsEnvhN KP2LX77OPGo0DNpYuj9gaPtdhGGO3hRJnpjBVGZpjh8uXLiArUTGOVlb606w3/WK cdYwKOkKrC3qlbtq5QiAyGm1fRXyG4DMfbyi5svWC9g5Ms+b5i2OyKAR3OM9Gnoo YRuOmAuamUx3hmLU9S2n =2S42 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
