[Pkg-octave-devel] octave2.1 and octave2.9 in unstable

[John W. Eaton]

On 15-Nov-2005, folajimi wrote:

| Forgive me if this is out of context, but according to the Debian
| Policy Manual (section 8.3 - Static libraries):
| 
| "The static library (libraryname.a) is usually provided in _addition_ to the
| shared version..." (Emphasis Mine)
| 
| The relevant exception to this rule is for "libraries which are explicitly
| intended to be available only in static form by their upstream author(s)." Is
| that the case here? Does the GNU project have a contradictory policy?

I don't speak for the GNU project and I don't even know if they have a
policy about shared libraries.

As I see it, the difference between a shared and static library is
just an implementation detail.  I don't really care which is used, as
long as it works.  Apparently, the problem is that on some platforms,
glpk needs to be defined in a shared library so that it can play nice
with Octave's interface to glpk, which is itself a shared library.
Again, these are implementation details.  Why would the author of any
library want to make said library available only in static form?

jwe