On 01/20/2014 02:18 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
>   That's it! So if the '.a' files are gone, then Arch's packaging software
> automatically strips them internally. That is what I'm trying to track down.

  It is a new option in the arch packaging app that strips static libraries by
default:

On 29/09/13 17:36, Allan McRae wrote:
> All this recent talk about static libs reminded me that we added
> options=(!staticlibs) to makepkg-4.1 to automatically remove them, with
> the idea of enabling it by default.
<snip>
Once devtools is updated, I will generate a rebuild list.  If your
package really needs static libs, you will need to add
options=(staticlibs) to the PKGBUILD.  The packages I know that need it
are glibc, gcc, binutils, haskell, probably lua (but we hack that for
shared libraries...).  So if you are not dealing with a compiler, you
probably do not need them...

(he is no light-weight in distributions/software packaging)

  HOWEVER, this exploit does raise a legitimate issue - all current software
(excluding compilers) has done away with all reliance on static libraries. That
may be something we want to look at for TDE as we go forward.

  The immediate question is what packages currently rely on static libraries in
TDE? So far the first FTBFS related to static libs has been tdebase/ksysguard
relying on static libs from tdelibs.

  Should we open a bug to track failures related to reliance on static libs.

-- 
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.