Request for review: glpk -AND- shared vs static libs in Extras

[Quentin Spencer]

Ed Hill wrote:

>On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 08:40 -0500, Quentin Spencer wrote:
>  
>
>>GLPK (Gnu Linear Programming Kit) is a library for solving linear 
>>programming (LP) problems. This is used by the development (2.9.x) and 
>>the upcoming 3.0 versions of octave. For more information about the 
>>library, see:
>>http://www.gnu.org/software/glpk/glpk.html
>>
>>My SRPM can be found here:
>>http://webpages.charter.net/qspencer/octave/glpk-4.8-1.src.rpm
>>
>>One note about this package. The upstream sources do not provide for 
>>building shared libraries. The maintainer has seemed somewhat 
>>unresponsive to requests on the mailing list for this (and a lot of 
>>other things), and I don't really have time or interest in maintaining 
>>patches separate from the sources, so for now this is a static-only 
>>library. I have put everything in glpk-devel, with the intention of 
>>creating a glpk package in the future if shared libs are supported. This 
>>library is not likely to be used by many applications, so for now I 
>>don't see this as a problem.
>>    
>>
>
>Hi Quentin,
>
>If someone else doesn't get to it first, I promise review glpk before
>Aug 1.
>  
>

Thanks.

>Also, I think the removal of static libs is (or perhaps should be?)
>mostly aimed at Core.  In Extras, its not like we're shipping a lot of
>ISO9660 or DVD images.  All of extras truly is "optional", right?  So I
>don't see why fighting with every package to produce shared libs makes
>sense in Extras -- particularly given all the work involved, the lack of
>upstream interest (as you point out!), and the smaller user base that
>many Extras packages are targeting.
>
>Or am I missing something?
>  
>

I think you're right about saving disk space being less critical in 
Extras than in core, but I also think that in general it's good to save 
space where possible. Yes, disk space is cheap these days, but I think 
we need to keep in mind the cumulative effects (on disk space and 
download size) of a static library if it came to be used by a lot of 
applications. On the other hand, if a library is only used by one 
application (likely the case here), then it may actually be more 
efficient to statically link.

-Quentin