On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:03 PM, William Hubbs <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 07:42:26PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to >> go and look at fixing them, because I'd prefer to keep them available as >> static builds. > > I'm curious what the use case for keeping them as static builds is? I > would rather see that support dropped as well.
Honestly, I don't think maintainers should be asked to justify features unless they're actually causing some kind of conflict. If Robin wants to support USE=static for lvm2, he can do so. If it somehow caused problems with other packages that would be a different matter, but I can't see how a static binary should hurt anything. If he wanted to drop dynamic linking support I'd also be concerned. However, maintainers should be free to support options even if some consider them a waste of time. If Robin wants to satisfy our idle curiosity he can do so, but let's not hound maintainers willing to do extra work unless they're actually causing problems. Rich
