On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 04:25:00PM +0100, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> > + All libraries must have a shared version in the > > + <tt>lib*</tt> package and may have a static version in the > > + <tt>lib*-dev</tt> package. > > > Rationale: > > > > The removed paragraph was redundant with the first paragraph of the > > section and was moved there. > > You've made it a violation of policy to *not* provided a shared version > of a library. > > Some libraries aren't intended to have shared versions available. Agreed. But the current version of the policy already reads: | In general, libraries must have a shared version in the library | package and a static version in the development package. [...] | All libraries must have a shared version in the `lib*' package and a | static version in the `lib*-dev' package. [...] So, it's already a violation not to provide a shared version. (Which is admittedly unreasonable.) > > This policy change would allow maintainers to decide for themselves, > > whether a static version of their library is useful, thereby decreasing > > the size of many -dev packages and in turn decreasing download time and > > archive size. In the rare cases, where a static library is needed and > > the package maintainer doesn't provide it, the user can either request > > the inclusion from the maintainer or compile the library his/herself. > > The user can do all kinds of things for "hisself" [sic]; Debian tries to > make such things straightforward. s/his/him/ I just don't see the reason why we should waste a lot of bandwidth and storage size just for a hypothetical case. I doubt that there is a significant number of users that will need static version of most of our libraries. Please note that I don't want to remove static versions of libraries from all development packages. I just want to place the inclusion at the maintainer's discretion. > How about a policy proposal that simply clears up the redundancy rather > than pursuing a private agenda as a bonus? Since this "private agenda" was why I reviewed the policy section in question, in the first place, I merged these two proposals. If the current proposal fails, I will pursue the redundacy cleanup, at least. - Sebastian
