-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 16/03/2013 12:55, Tobias Hansen wrote: > Am 15.03.2013 13:56, schrieb Julien Puydt: >> a few days ago, bug #702898 asked to add the static libraries to >> the libfplll-dev package. Yesterday, I committed a fix to the git >> repository for the package. > > We would not use the static library in Debian, so you don't have > to provide it just because a bug requests it. I don't provide > static libraries for any of my library packages. > > I think I originally stopped shipping static libraries, because > the library packaging guide [1] suggests to avoid them. Since then > I learned that this guide contains some bad advice (naming dev > packages libfooX-dev instead of libfoo-dev) and errors (when ABI > breakage is "fixed" by renaming libfooX to libfooXsomething and > keeping the SONAME, libfooXsomething must not provide libfooX). The > guide was removed from Debian for that reason. So I suspect that > the guide may just be badly worded and should say "providing *only* > a static library should be avoided". > > Anyway, I also saw other people removing static libraries from dev > packages and I'm still comfortable with not providing them, > especially for libraries that are not widely used. > > Any thoughts from other people on this? I share your opinion. I prefer when packages are using shared libraries. Therefor, when a changed is done on the library, the other packages using it immediately get the changes. Otherwise, they have to be rebuilt...
Sylvestre -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlFEXc8ACgkQiOXXM92JlhBEQgCgxReKRC3yt79YMl7/MzSeWoM4 rGQAoIrTcLyqWXOn/zGOLIOegFMOFyCR =4+E3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
