No archive files for static compilation are included in the -dev package

[Alfonso Sanchez-Beato]

There is no libgraphite2.a file, so it is not possible to compile statically against this library. See attached patch to solve this.

[Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot (crichton)]

The attachment "debdiff.patch" seems to be a debdiff. The ubuntu-sponsors team has been subscribed to the bug report so that they can review and hopefully sponsor the debdiff. If the attachment isn't a patch, please remove the "patch" flag from the attachment, remove the "patch" tag, and if you are member of the ~ubuntu-sponsors, unsubscribe the team.

[This is an automated message performed by a Launchpad user owned by ~brian-murray, for any issue please contact him.]

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

Thank for your bug report, the package is in sync with Debian so could you report the issue there?

[Alfonso Sanchez-Beato (alfonsosanchezbeato)]

Debian bug: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994757

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

Debian wontfixed the change so it means we will need to carry a delta at the cost of increased workload from our team if we take the change. Not saying that we should be we need to weight the cost over time and the benefit

[Mattia Rizzolo (mapreri)]

As a member of the Debian LibreOffice Team, and also as an Ubuntu
Developer, I'm likewise not convinced that starting to build and ship
graphite2's static library is a really useful thing to do.

I'm personally generically against static libraries, since I regularly see
grief caused by poor tracking of statically-builtand or embedded things.

And I don't really buy the need to save space when talking about a 137328
bytes shared lib (taken from the last build of graphite2 in Sid, that's the
size of the .so).
It feels like you are building some kind to system image that you'd then
flash into some embedded thingy. I don't think there is much value in
saving...what, a dozen kB perhaps? (I haven't tried building the .a, so
happy to get the number). If your system is so constrained in space you're
likely going to need some much more dedicated work to reduce the size of
all components anyway; similarly if you are after the (normally
uncountable) performance improvement of statically linked binaries.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021, 1:06 pm Sebastien Bacher, <email address hidden>
wrote:

> Debian wontfixed the change so it means we will need to carry a delta at
> the cost of increased workload from our team if we take the change. Not
> saying that we should be we need to weight the cost over time and the
> benefit
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to Ubuntu.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1943984
>
> Title:
> No archive files for static compilation are included in the -dev
> package
>
> Status in graphite2 package in Ubuntu:
> New
> Status in graphite2 package in Debian:
> Won't Fix
>
> Bug description:
> There is no libgraphite2.a file, so it is not possible to compile
> statically against this library. See attached patch to solve this.
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/graphite2/+bug/1943984/+subscriptions
>
>
>

[Alfonso Sanchez-Beato (alfonsosanchezbeato)]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:35 PM Mattia Rizzolo
<email address hidden> wrote:
>
> As a member of the Debian LibreOffice Team, and also as an Ubuntu
> Developer, I'm likewise not convinced that starting to build and ship
> graphite2's static library is a really useful thing to do.
>
> I'm personally generically against static libraries, since I regularly see
> grief caused by poor tracking of statically-builtand or embedded things.

Well, I have seen grief caused by shared libraries pulling too many dependencies
or by shared libraries updates that break applications even though in theory the
ABI compatibility has been kept. Also, there is actually a trend towards static
compilation (golang, rust), so I do not think I'm the only one seeing this.

But that is not really relevant. There are valid uses of static
libraries, and the
developers should have the option to choose between shared and static.
The patch does not prevent using shared libraries, it just gives more options to
application developers.

>
> And I don't really buy the need to save space when talking about a 137328
> bytes shared lib (taken from the last build of graphite2 in Sid, that's the
> size of the .so).
> It feels like you are building some kind to system image that you'd then
> flash into some embedded thingy. I don't think there is much value in
> saving...what, a dozen kB perhaps? (I haven't tried building the .a, so
> happy to get the number). If your system is so constrained in space you're
> likely going to need some much more dedicated work to reduce the size of
> all components anyway; similarly if you are after the (normally
> uncountable) performance improvement of statically linked binaries.

Nobody said this was about saving space. libgraphite was being pulled as
many other dependencies and I wanted to have all statically compiled instead
of some static, some dynamic.

Said this, I agree in not carrying a delta between Debian and Ubuntu as this
library does not pull additional dependencies and is small, so additional
maintenance is not worth the effort.

>
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021, 1:06 pm Sebastien Bacher, <email address hidden>
> wrote:
>
> > Debian wontfixed the change so it means we will need to carry a delta at
> > the cost of increased workload from our team if we take the change. Not
> > saying that we should be we need to weight the cost over time and the
> > benefit
> >
> > --
> > You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to Ubuntu.
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1943984
> >
> > Title:
> > No archive files for static compilation are included in the -dev
> > package
> >
> > Status in graphite2 package in Ubuntu:
> > New
> > Status in graphite2 package in Debian:
> > Won't Fix
> >
> > Bug description:
> > There is no libgraphite2.a file, so it is not possible to compile
> > statically against this library. See attached patch to solve this.
> >
> > To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> >
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/graphite2/+bug/1943984/+subscriptions
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net...