Re: Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))

2016-01-29 Thread Guus Sliepen
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:38:11PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Static libraries are useful to users who want to build binaries and > then ship them about without all the library clobber. [...] > > Overall I do think the costs of providing the static libraries, even > where a shared library is

Re: Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))

2016-01-29 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
Hello, On 28 January 2016 at 14:38, Ian Jackson wrote: > Andreas Tille writes ("Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: > Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))"): >> I came across this question since policy says (see link above)

Re: Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))

2016-01-29 Thread Bas Wijnen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 06:03:26PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Imho, if static libraries, are shipped we should be conservative about > them (e.g. do it pretty much for libc only to compile minimal > freestanding bootloaders and that's about

Re: Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))

2016-01-28 Thread Christian Seiler
On 28.01.2016 16:06, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:38:11PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Overall I do think the costs of providing the static libraries, even >> where a shared library is also provided, are justifiable. > > Agreed. We obviously shouldn't drop shared libraries;

Re: Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))

2016-01-28 Thread Bas Wijnen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:38:11PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Andreas Tille writes ("Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: > Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))"): > > I came across this question since policy

Re: Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))

2016-01-28 Thread Simon McVittie
On 28/01/16 16:27, Christian Seiler wrote: > So unless there is an _undue_ maintenance burden for building a static > version of a given library ... or a reason why it's useless. For instance, src:telepathy-mission-control-5 ships libmission-control-plugins, which could easily be built static but

Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))

2016-01-28 Thread Andreas Tille
[Moving this thread to debian-devel ...] Hi, On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:46:56PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 08:59:27AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > > > wait, why would you want to build a static library? > > > A static library is bad in the context of a linux

Re: Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))

2016-01-28 Thread Ian Jackson
Andreas Tille writes ("Statically linked library in libdevel packages? (Was: Status of teem package (packaging moved from svn to git))"): > I came across this question since policy says (see link above) that > static libraries are *usually* provided. I do not question Mattia's > arguing but if