On Apr 8, 2007, at 12:44, reply possible until june 2007 via RT wrote:
Show quoted text
> This can be a wrong place to complain (?) - I do not see any replies
> to others' complaints - but static libraries _are_ necessary indeed.
>
> If static build is broken,
> it is the build which should be fixed, not the options disabled.
We're aware static libraries are important for some people, but they
aren't a priority for our own work and most of the system integrators
we deal with, compared to some other issues like plugin support that
get more complicated when static libraries come into play.
If someone wants to look at re-adding the static library support,
including plugin support and dealing with recent changes in our
configure script support (the old approach required separate
configure scripts for static libraries and shared libraries; now the
selection is done via differences in Makefile.in), I'd be happy to
talk with them about it. Restoring support for profiled libraries at
the same time would be a plus as well. We don't have any objection
to being able to do these; it's just getting more complicated and, as
I said, not high enough of a priority for us.
Ken
