static libs ... again

[Rex Dieter]

Hans de Goede wrote:

> But sometimes upstream doesn't, because they dont care about this for 
> example, yet it would still be worth the trouble. 

At the packagers discretion, sure, if they're willing to do the extra 
work, testing, troubleshooting.

> I believe this needs 
> more discussion we all seem to agree that static libs should be provided 
> if possible, 

???
There have been quite a few dissenters... including my own stance: 
static libs should in general be omitted, but allowing for exceptions(*)

(*) If there is good reason otherwise, and packager is willing.


-- Rex