Static version of libitpp is missing from libitpp-dev package

[yuricbs]

The static version of the itpp library (libitpp.a) is missing from the libitpp-dev Ubuntu package. I see that all the other math libraries - such as lapack, atlas, fftw3, etc. - have both shared (.so) and static versions (.a), only that of itpp is missing. Would it be possible to include it? That would be very useful for itpp programmers that need to run their executables in machines that do not have the shared libraries.

What I think that can be done to solve it:

The itpp library should be recompiled with the "--enable-static" option (http://itpp.sourceforge.net/current/installation.html) and the "libitpp.a" file should be included within the ubuntu packages of both hardy and gutsy versions.

Thanks in advance,
Yuri C. B. Silva

[Kumar Appaiah (kumar-appaiah)]

While I have nothing against generating the static library, it's against (Debian) policy to generate just a static library alone... That doesn't apply in this case, since we are considering an additional static library.

But about an optional static library, I have just one problem. It results in duplication of code, and possibly a significant increase in size of the package. Besides, the purpose of a bug fix in the library automatically propagating to an executable through dynamic linking is lost, since static executables have to be rebuilt.

But, if you still require a static library for your own use, I would suggest building the package yourself. To the best of my knowledge, this change will not be made by the Ubuntu maintainer for this package. (Please correct me if I am wrong).

Thanks.

Kumar

[yuricbs (yuricbs)]

I agree with the points you raised regarding the general disadvantages of
using static libraries. I am also aware that it would significantly increase
the size of the package.

In my particular case I require the itpp static libraries since I need to
run the compiled code on a simulation cluster which does not have the shared
libraries installed. That's the advantage of static libraries: portability.

So far I have been building the library myself, as you mentioned. Anyway, I
would rather use the ubuntu packages instead of rebuilding the library
myself everytime it is updated.

I cannot tell you whether there is a large demand that would justify
including the static library in the package. But I can tell you that there
is a special appeal in the case of math/simulation libraries, since many
people who program using those libraries run their code not on their
machines but on simulation clusters.

My question would be: What would be the criterion to decide whether or not
to include the static library within a development package? In the case of
lapack3-dev, atlas3-dev, libfftw3-dev, for example, the static libraries are
included within the packages. In my opinion, libitpp-dev would fit into the
same class (math/simulation purposes) as those packages.

Regarding the adequacy of this matter, do you think it would be more
appropriate to take the discussion to the debian mantainers?

Thanks,

Yuri

2008/7/29 Kumar Appaiah <email address hidden>

> While I have nothing against generating the static library, it's against
> (Debian) policy to generate just a static library alone... That doesn't
> apply in this case, since we are considering an additional static
> library.
>
> But about an optional static library, I have just one problem. It
> results in duplication of code, and possibly a significant increase in
> size of the package. Besides, the purpose of a bug fix in the library
> automatically propagating to an executable through dynamic linking is
> lost, since static executables have to be rebuilt.
>
> But, if you still require a static library for your own use, I would
> suggest building the package yourself. To the best of my knowledge, this
> change will not be made by the Ubuntu maintainer for this package.
> (Please correct me if I am wrong).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kumar
>
> --
> Static version of libitpp is missing from libitpp-dev package
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/239179
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>
> Status in "libitpp" source package in Ubuntu: New
>
> Bug description:
> The static version of the itpp library (libitpp.a) is missing from the
> libitpp-dev Ubuntu package. I see that all the other math libraries - such
> as lapack, atlas, fftw3, etc. - have both shared (.so) and static versions
> (.a), only that of itpp is missing. Would it be possible to include it? That
> would be very useful for itpp programmers that need to run their executables
> in machines that do not have the shared libraries.
>
> What I think that can be done to solve it:
>
> The itpp library should be recompiled with the "--enable-static" option (
> http://itpp.sourceforge.net/current/installation.h...

[Aanjhan Ranganathan (aanjhan)]

Kumar is the Debian Maintainer for this package. So the discussion is
very much appropriate here.
http://packages.debian.org/sid/libitpp-dev

[Aanjhan Ranganathan (aanjhan)]

Upon discussion with Debian maintainer, setting it to confirmed. Importance needs to set to Low or Wishlist.

[Darlan Cavalcante (darcamo)]

I have the same problem (using ubuntu 9.04). I need the static version of the library so that I can statically link an application that I'm developing that uses the library.

For someone just using an application linked to the itpp library only the shared library is necessary and everything could just stays as it is, but for someone developing an application with the library the static version may be necessary. In this case the person would have to install the package libitpp-dev anyway. Therefore, I think that a good solution would be to install the static version only if the user installs the development package.