Re: static libraries in packages

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On 2014-05-14 06:51, Christian Hesse wrote:
Antonio Rojas <nqn1976list@xxxxxxxxx> 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=c34f53eeb8efd6b4b033c2fdc58d0a329efdeeef

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.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux