<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Dmitry Butskoy wrote: <blockquote cite="mid43720B85.8030105@odu.neva.ru" type="cite"> This statistics as well as the discussion which has arisen after my initial message, testifies that people either did not hear about changes, or disagree with them. This situation creates a precedent: there is a policy, but significant part of maintainers ignore it.</blockquote> Rex Dieter wrote: <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote style="border-left: 0.2em solid rgb(85, 85, 238); margin: 0em; padding-left: 0.85em;"><tt>And should the static libs be placed in a -static package or not packaged </tt><tt>at all? </tt></blockquote> <pre style="margin: 0em;">IMO, not packaged at all. </pre> </blockquote> Dmitry Butskoy wrote: <blockquote type="cite"><tt>Anyway, the total impossibility to make the static program is very rough </tt><tt>idea.</tt></blockquote> Toshio Kuratomi wrote: <blockquote type="cite"> <pre>We should remove the policy from the wiki until we hash out what we really want. </pre> </blockquote> Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: <blockquote type="cite"> <pre>The consensus that I'm hearing here is that a policy change would be welcomed for FC5+ </pre> </blockquote> Are there any chances to clear this problem in the nearest future? In other words - what I should do with static libraries today? And whether it will be necessary to alter things in the near future? ~buc </body> </html>