On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:43:04 -0400
Mike Frysinger <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2011 03:10:45 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:39:32 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 18, 2011 18:16:30 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > '$(use_enable static-libs static)' themselves. While at it, it
> > > > > may be better to just drop the flag if no other package
> > > > > relies on it and no user has ever requested the static build
> > > > > of that package.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see any harm with including IUSE="static-libs" for every
> > > > package that has working/usable static libraries. Why wait
> > > > for users to request it on bugzilla when it's a near-zero-cost
> > > > and zero-maintenance to add it to ebuilds?
> > >
> > > i missed this sentence from Michał's e-mail. unconditionally not
> > > building static libraries is against policy. if you install
> > > shared libs that get linked against, then you must provide static
> > > libraries unconditionally as well or support IUSE=static-libs.
> > > maintainers do not get to choose "no one has asked for it and no
> > > one in the tree is using it thus my ebuild isnt going to".
> > Where is that policy?
> this policy predates much of the documentation process and is missed
> by the developer handbook. it is however mentioned explicitly in the
So, it a policy which even QA doesn't recall. It seems worth changing
as there is really no reason to randomly install every possible static
library out there if system does support and use shared linking.
> > AFAIK the policy was to 'follow upstream' which
> > usually means 'shared only'. I really don't see a reason to build
> > static libtorrent as upstream even doesn't support static linking.
> by that token, i'll go ahead and remove glibc's static libraries
> since upstream doesn't even support static linking
I'm probably ignorant so you'd have to elaborate more on that to make
me see a problem there.