On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 12:13:45AM +0200, Martin Albert wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22. August 2001 23:41, Brian S. Julin wrote:
> > Do you really mean Debian wants every single LibGGI target, renderer,
> > and extension lib all rolled into one .a? What do other packages
> > that have plugins do for their -dev static libraries? I mean, a
> > static (i.e., linked statically against libc) version of just the
> > base libggi/libgii would be possible, and may even already work, but
> > the modules cannot be static without building them in. I certainly
> > hope that the latter is what the Debian policy really wants and not
> > the former.
>
> Not into one .a :)
> Each -dev package MUST (that's the problem) have static libs
> corresponding to the shared libs that are in the shared-libs-package.
I haven't yet had the reason to do it myself, but I think it's nice to
be able to statically link a program and send it to someone without
having to bother him about installing libraries etc.
Just a couple of days ago, I wished I had a debugging version of the
mesa libraries, when I got a segmentation fault in gluBuild2DMipmaps
and didn't understand why. (I see now that there are actually
packages with that, xlibmesa3-dbg.) I don't really think there's a
need for debugging versions of the ggi libraries, but it might help
someone making a better bug report or so. My thought is that a static
library would contain debugging information so that could solve two
problems at once. (Or am I wrong here?)
Anyway, this was just some thoughts. Don't take them too seriously.
--
Niklas
