Re: Revert "package bbclass: strip static libs as well"

[Phil Blundell <pb@reciva.com>]

On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 13:07 +0200, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
> I think that the logic should be:
> 
> libfoo.a exists and libfoo.so exists => put .a to -static.
> 
> libfoo.a exists and libfoo.so does not exist => put .a to -dev.
> 
> This logic will work as most users expect and will need no exception for
> glibc.

I agree that this logic would give you the optimum results in all cases,
but I am not sure that it is worth the trouble to implement.  There are
hardly any packages that ship static-only libraries and most (perhaps
all) of the ones that do are most likely doing so for erroneous reasons.
The remaining packages that ship static-only libraries for good reason
are almost certainly few enough in number that they could be fixed up
individually.

> That is why I would like to introduce new global default:
> --disable-static (via variable, site config or so).

That sounds like a fine idea to me.  I'm not so sure about making it the
default, but providing an easy switch that DISTROs can use to turn off
static libraries globally would be a good plan.

p.