[arch-general] static libraries in packages
Hello everybody, I just opened a bug report about libmariadbclient package shipping with static libraries [0]. Taking a look at my libs dir I found some more... # ll /usr/lib/*.a | wc -l 210 Any reason packages start shipping static libraries again? Or is there any build system with wrong settings in makepkg.conf? [0] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/40352 -- main(a){char*c=/* Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH" "CX:;",b;for(a/* Chris get my mail address: */=0;b=c[a++];) putchar(b-1/(/* gcc -o sig sig.c && ./sig */b/42*2-3)*42);}
On 2014-05-14 03:23, Christian Hesse wrote:
Hello everybody,
I just opened a bug report about libmariadbclient package shipping with static libraries [0]. Taking a look at my libs dir I found some more...
# ll /usr/lib/*.a | wc -l 210
Any reason packages start shipping static libraries again? Or is there any build system with wrong settings in makepkg.conf?
They were specifically re-enabled in libmariadbclient, not sure why, though. https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/mariadb&id=74ef541c06d70e373ce90dbae2e507185914651f I only have 36 on my system, most related to gcc or glibc. What are all of yours?
Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> on Wed, 2014/05/14 03:38:
On 2014-05-14 03:23, Christian Hesse wrote:
Hello everybody,
I just opened a bug report about libmariadbclient package shipping with static libraries [0]. Taking a look at my libs dir I found some more...
# ll /usr/lib/*.a | wc -l 210
Any reason packages start shipping static libraries again? Or is there any build system with wrong settings in makepkg.conf?
They were specifically re-enabled in libmariadbclient, not sure why, though.
I only have 36 on my system, most related to gcc or glibc. What are all of yours?
# pacman -Qoq /usr/lib/*.a | sort | uniq -c 2 binutils 1 bison 36 boost 24 clang 1 dialog 1 e2fsprogs 1 elfutils 3 gcc-multilib 11 glibc 2 gnu-efi-libs 1 iproute2 1 jansson 1 libbsd 1 libemu 1 libgnome-sharp 4 libmariadbclient 1 libxp 4 live-media 97 llvm 1 lrzip 2 mupdf 1 nss 1 openobex 1 orbit2 1 qt4 3 qt5-base 1 qt5-tools 1 ruby 1 sdl 1 tcl 1 tk 1 yasm 1 zlib I think gcc, glibc, llvm and friends are ok. But zlib, mupdf, mysql/mariadb and some others should go away. -- main(a){char*c=/* Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH" "CX:;",b;for(a/* Chris get my mail address: */=0;b=c[a++];) putchar(b-1/(/* gcc -o sig sig.c && ./sig */b/42*2-3)*42);}
Christian Hesse wrote:
I think gcc, glibc, llvm and friends are ok. But zlib, mupdf, mysql/mariadb and some others should go away.
There was a to-do list to cleanup all static libs, so all remaining ones are there for a reason. Check the changelogs for the specific reasons for each package, e.g. https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/zlib&id=83d05088a1cb1b56561b9ebe365d18d033752c72 https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/mupdf&id=c34f53eeb8efd6b4b033c2fdc58d0a329efdeeef
Antonio Rojas <nqn1976list@gmail.com> on Wed, 2014/05/14 11:51:
Christian Hesse wrote:
I think gcc, glibc, llvm and friends are ok. But zlib, mupdf, mysql/mariadb and some others should go away.
There was a to-do list to cleanup all static libs, so all remaining ones are there for a reason. Check the changelogs for the specific reasons for each package, e.g.
Is it possible to fix binutils testsuite? Remember the security flaws in zlib? Does anybody know what package has been built against static zlib?
This brings the static libraries back, but there is no reason. libmariadbclient ships with static libraries because a package from AUR (neko) requires it. I think anybody should fix neko, but shipping official packages with static libraries in this situation is just stupid. Removing static libraries (and keeping them away!) should be treated more strict. -- main(a){char*c=/* Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH" "CX:;",b;for(a/* Chris get my mail address: */=0;b=c[a++];) putchar(b-1/(/* gcc -o sig sig.c && ./sig */b/42*2-3)*42);}
On 14/05/2014 13:51, Christian Hesse wrote:
Is it possible to fix binutils testsuite?
Remember the security flaws in zlib? Does anybody know what package has been built against static zlib?
This brings the static libraries back, but there is no reason.
libmariadbclient ships with static libraries because a package from AUR (neko) requires it. I think anybody should fix neko, but shipping official packages with static libraries in this situation is just stupid.
Removing static libraries (and keeping them away!) should be treated more strict.
Please file bug reports. One for each package. -- Timothée Ravier
On 2014-05-14 06:51, Christian Hesse wrote:
Antonio Rojas <nqn1976list@gmail.com> on Wed, 2014/05/14 11:51:
Christian Hesse wrote:
I think gcc, glibc, llvm and friends are ok. But zlib, mupdf, mysql/mariadb and some others should go away.
There was a to-do list to cleanup all static libs, so all remaining ones are there for a reason. Check the changelogs for the specific reasons for each package, e.g.
Is it possible to fix binutils testsuite?
Remember the security flaws in zlib? Does anybody know what package has been built against static zlib?
This brings the static libraries back, but there is no reason.
libmariadbclient ships with static libraries because a package from AUR (neko) requires it. I think anybody should fix neko, but shipping official packages with static libraries in this situation is just stupid.
Removing static libraries (and keeping them away!) should be treated more strict.
That's completely up to the maintainer. If they decide to ship static libs for any reason, that's their choice to make. There are very few "strict" rules.
This may not be the best place to ask... But what exactly is the problem with mariadb shipping with static libs? On 14-May-2014 8:53 PM, "Doug Newgard" <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On 2014-05-14 06:51, Christian Hesse wrote:
Antonio Rojas <nqn1976list@gmail.com> on Wed, 2014/05/14 11:51:
Christian Hesse wrote:
I think gcc, glibc, llvm and friends are ok. But zlib, mupdf, mysql/mariadb and some others should go away.
There was a to-do list to cleanup all static libs, so all remaining ones are there for a reason. Check the changelogs for the specific reasons for each package, e.g.
https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/ commit/trunk?h=packages/zlib&id=83d05088a1cb1b56561b9ebe365d18d033752c72
Is it possible to fix binutils testsuite?
Remember the security flaws in zlib? Does anybody know what package has been built against static zlib?
https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/
commit/trunk?h=packages/mupdf&id=c34f53eeb8efd6b4b033c2fdc58d0a 329efdeeef
This brings the static libraries back, but there is no reason.
libmariadbclient ships with static libraries because a package from AUR (neko) requires it. I think anybody should fix neko, but shipping official packages with static libraries in this situation is just stupid.
Removing static libraries (and keeping them away!) should be treated more strict.
That's completely up to the maintainer. If they decide to ship static libs for any reason, that's their choice to make. There are very few "strict" rules.
Updated the neko package in AUR. It should no longer need the static mariadb library file. --- Best regards, xyproto / Alexander Rødseth
participants (6)
-
Alexander Rødseth
-
Antonio Rojas
-
Christian Hesse
-
Doug Newgard
-
Sri Krishna
-
Timothée Ravier