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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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=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. >
