Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I stopped providing static libraries in all my library packages quite a > while back. No one used them, and they were just needless bloat. I > can't say I would be upset if we dropped all the static libraries from > the entire archive--is there actually a real world requirement for them > in 2008?
MIT Kerberos upstream has dropped support for static linking because of their new plugin infrastructure, and while they hope to reintroduce it by popular demand at some point, it's not a high priority. About the only useful purpose for static linking is when distributing client binaries to many systems where one can't use the native package manager and hence can't use real package dependencies. It lets you limit the amount of stuff that the person has to install. I've run into a few cases like that, but usually the real solution is to fix the underlying issues (often political) preventing the use of real packages with package management. It's more of an issue on systems like Solaris that don't have useful package managers. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
