static libraries' policy: possible solution

[Tom 'spot' Callaway]

On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 16:08 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Tom 'spot' Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) said: 
> > On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 17:49 +0300, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> > > What about the idea to ship static libraries the same way as debuginfo 
> > > is done?
> > > 
> > > On the one hand, no more static libs will be present in most of devel 
> > > packages. This should satisfy "no-static' guys, as no any static will be 
> > > on CD, DVD, most of mirrors etc. (the same way as there are no debuginfo 
> > > packages there).
> > > On the other hand, this can satisfy "save-static" guys, as there will be 
> > > possibility to download ready/correct static libraries for some rare 
> > > (but needed!) purposes.
> > 
> > I'm not opposed to this. Jeremy, what do you think?
> 
> Sounds messy; it's another tweak to put into rel-eng tools to get
> things to work in a sane manner.

Perhaps, but:

1. There is tangible benefit to this, it will shrink the size of Core.
2. This method can be easily short-circuited for those apps which need
it.
3. Most other RPM based distros have already done this (or something
similar).

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!