On 28/09/13 19:27, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
[2013-09-28 15:26:56 +0100] Delcypher:
I am strongly against this proposal. For many reasons, including those in the page Allan pointed to, dynamic libraries should be the default on Arch systems, and they should be the only supported type of library.
Which page did Allan refer to? I cannot see a reply from Allan in this thread. The only link I could find in the other threads was http://www.plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/why_static/ and that wasn't really in favour of shared libraries.
Users who wish to build and use static libraries are of course free to do so, but should not expect Arch will do this work for them. Splitting packages as you suggests puts more burden on the developers, build process, and mirror bandwidth - with very few users benefiting.
But, hey, that's fine: there is tons of great stuff in the AUR which is not officially supported by Arch Linux, simply because we do not have the resources to support everything - so we just focus on what most people care. And anybody is free to come along and "unofficially" support anything else...
I am disappointed that is the consensus but if the majority of Arch developers share the view that static libraries should be removed entirely then there is little I can do to change things. I'll have to maintain my own boost packages for now. Thanks, Dan.