While I have nothing against generating the static library, it's against (Debian) policy to generate just a static library alone... That doesn't apply in this case, since we are considering an additional static library.
But about an optional static library, I have just one problem. It results in duplication of code, and possibly a significant increase in size of the package. Besides, the purpose of a bug fix in the library automatically propagating to an executable through dynamic linking is lost, since static executables have to be rebuilt. But, if you still require a static library for your own use, I would suggest building the package yourself. To the best of my knowledge, this change will not be made by the Ubuntu maintainer for this package. (Please correct me if I am wrong). Thanks. Kumar -- Static version of libitpp is missing from libitpp-dev package https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/239179 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
