[arch-general] Libraries should also be built statically

[Heiko Baums]

Am Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:58:24 +1000
schrieb Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org>:

> I disagree.  Static libraries generally suck and hide rebuilds needed 
> for security issues.  So unless something specifically needs the
> static library, I think it should be removed.

Such rebuilds are only hidden if a program is linked statically against
a library even if it can be linked dynamically, which should be avoided
anyway. If a program is linked dynamically it doesn't touch the static
library.

So if a dev, TU or AUR maintainer builds a package which depends on a
library. This package should usually be linked dynamically against this
library. In this case the static library isn't needed. But if such a
package like fbsplash needs to be statically linked against a library
it's only possible if the static version is available.

And other people who probably just want to write software for their
own, who want to build a portable app or to learn programming or
whatever and want or need to use statical linking can't do this without
the static libraries.

And do you want everybody who needs the static version of a library for
whatever reason to file a bug report for every single case and to
explain why he needs this static version?

That would take too much time while building a static library doesn't
take much more time and disk space.

Greetings,
Heiko