Bug#637758: Distributing static libraries

[Andres Mejia]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 22:29, Andres Mejia <mcitadel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Fabian Greffrath <fabian at greffrath.com> wrote:
>>> Am 11.08.2011 05:22, schrieb Andres Mejia:
>>>>
>>>> I have seen a commit with mp4v2 that disables building of the static
>>>> library. Though I know binaries in Debian are normally linked with
>>>> shared libraries, distributing the static library is beneficial to
>>>> users with different requirements for software they distribute.
>>>>
>>>> I have heard of various use cases involving distribution of stand
>>>> alone binaries (no dependent shared libraries).
>>>
>>> The problem with this specific library is its license, which prohibits
>>> linking against about 99% of packages that come into consideration to make
>>> use of it. So most probably any application that statically links against it
>>> commits a license violation. :/
>>>
>>> Therefore, many applications fall back to dlopen() the library, in which
>>> case only the header files (if at all) are required.
>>>
>>> A similar case is libdvdcss. All applications that I know to make use of it
>>> try to dlopen() it instead of explicit linking, because they know that this
>>> library is widely considered undistributable - though for other reasons.
>>>
>>>  - Fabian
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
>>> pkg-multimedia-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org
>>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
>>>
>>
>> Ok, I see you're considering to licensing issues with mp4v2. I was
>> referring to the issue of simply providing static libraries in general
>> (not just with mp4v2).
>>
>> To state what I've mentioned another way, we shouldn't disable
>> distribution of static libraries simply because packages in Debian
>> won't link to them.
>
> Actually, I think static libraries should be disabled by default and
> enabled when needed. They provide zero value for most. Those who need
> it can build the static libraries themselves. And they probably
> will/should anyways, since static libs will probably be used in some
> rare context.

Going back to the issue of distributing static libs, I suppose it's
true that static libs will not be needed by most. However, the users
that would need them would expect them to be in the development
package of their distro (in Debian's case, the -dev package).

We could make these users build the libraries themselves, but then
they would also need to build all the build dependencies as well for
the library they need. This can be quite a burden on various
architectures, such as arm or mips. I'm sure everyone here is aware
that for most libraries, it's not just a matter of running
'./configure && make'.

It's likely these various users would be under limited time and
resources to provide their deliverable, thus I suspect they would
simply look elsewhere for precompiled static libraries.

> --
>
> Saludos,
> Felipe Sateler
>
> _______________________________________________
> pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
> pkg-multimedia-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia