[arch-general] static libraries in packages

[Sri Krishna]

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 at archlinux.info> wrote:

> On 2014-05-14 06:51, Christian Hesse wrote:
>
>> Antonio Rojas <nqn1976list at 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.
>