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.
