static libraries' policy

[Dmitry Butskoy]

Rex Dieter wrote:

> Patrice Dumas wrote:
>
>>> Right now, there is not a "no static libs permitted" policy. The policy
>>> states that they should be avoided wherever possible. I could change
>>> this to a "no static libs unless you have a darned good reason, which
>>> you will need to document in the spec file" policy, since some apps are
>>
>>
>>
>> And should the static libs be placed in a -static package or not 
>> packaged at all?
>
>
> IMO, not packaged at all.
>
IMHO, it would be better to package and distribute them, but the same 
way as debuginfo. I.e., no "-static" packages in any standard 
distribution (on CD and on most mirrors), and no need to package it 
explicitly. As packager just leave debug info in the executables (and 
later they will be stripped, but stripped data go to "-debuginfo"), as 
static libs can be left and excluded into separate special subpackage 
automagically.

Anyway, the total impossibility to make the static program is very rough 
idea. There must be already any precedents in another wide-spread enough 
distros, or Fedora can become a little bit marginal here.

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

>Place static libraries in a -static subpackage:
>Jen Petersen
>Warren Togami
>Ralf Corsepius
>[1/2] Christian Iseli
>[1/2] Ralf Ertzinger
>(Probably) Ville Skyta (Mentioned informationally PLD and Mandriva have
>-static and -static-devel resp.)
>(Probably) Christopher Aillon (Had nspr specific comments, since
>resolved)
>
>Keep status quo
>Daniel Velliard
>[1/2] Christian Iseli
>[1/2] Ralf Ertzinger
>[1/2] Jeremy Katz
>
>Remove completely
>[1/2] Jeremy Katz (Because comps is too complex with -static)
>
>> It was specified in PackagingGuidelines , since 26.07.2005
>> 
>This was not a group decision, however.
>
Such is possible???.. 8(((


~buc