On 04.10.22 00:42, Andres Freund wrote:
I realize that there are people for whom other considerations outweigh
that, but I don't think that we should install static libraries by
default. Long ago it was pretty common for configure scripts to
offer --enable-shared and --enable-static options ... should we
resurrect that?
It'd be easy enough. I don't really have an opinion on whether it's worth
having the options. I think most packaging systems have ways of not including
files even if $software installs them.
Right. I think there is enough work to stabilize and synchronize the
new build system. I don't really see a need to prioritize this.
A few questions, in case we want to do this:
1) should this affect libraries we build only as static libraries, like
pgport, pgcommon, pgfeutils?
I assume there's some extensions that build binaries with pgxs, which then
presumably need pgport, pgcommon.
I'm not familiar with cases like this and what their expectations would be.
2) Would we want the option add it to autoconf and meson, or just meson?
if at all, then both
3) For meson, I'd be inclined to leave the static libraries in as build
targets, but just not build and install them by default.
not sure why
4) Why are we installing the static libraries into libdir? Given that they're
not versioned at all, it somehow seems pkglibdir would be more appropriate?
That's the standard file system layout. I don't think we need to
editorialize that.
