Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 14:04 -0500, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
Quentin Spencer wrote:
So, not too long ago someone asked why I still had static libs in one of
my packages since they are "banned" or at least strongly discouraged, so
I started removing them from my packages. All of the libraries I
maintain are math libraries, so security concerns are a non-issue. After
removing the static libs from fftw-devel, it took less than 24 hours to
get a bug report asking for them back. See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181897 for the
reasoning.
It seems theirs is a rather specific and unique case. Should we change
policy to accommodate corner cases like that?
Why? Because a user says he can't build some applications statically?
What kind of rationale is this? Where is the technical explanation?
I've also had a request for reinstating static libs :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178853
I can see how profiling is important here, especially libsigc++ which is
a low-level library that is typically used all over C++ code...
-denis
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
