There is one interesting thing that, I’m afraid, most devleopers happen to ignore, either spontaneously, or because they really don’t know about them. One of this is the fact that static libraries and plugins usually don’t mix well. Although I have to warn you, that’s not an absolute and they can easily designed to work fine.
The main problem though is to ponder whether it is useful to use static libraries and plugins together, and then it’s to find out if it’s safe to or not. Let’s start from the basis. What are static libraries used for? Mostly for two reasons: performances, and not having to depend on the dynamic version of the same library in the system. If performance of the library is a problem, it’s much more likely that the culprit is the plugins system rather than the dynamic nature of the library; I have said something about it in the past, although I didn’t go much in details and I haven’t had time to continue the discussion yet.
For what concerns dependencies, the plugins usually need a way to access the functions provided by the main library; this means there is an ABI dependency between the two; now the plugins might not link against the library directly, to support static libraries usage, but it also means that if the internal ABI changes in any way between versions, you’re screwed.
What does this mean? That in most cases when you have plugins, you don’t want to have static libraries around; this means that you also don’t need the
.la files and so you have quite a bit of cleanup.
More to the point, if you’re building a plugin, you don’t want to build the static version at all, since the plugin will be opened with the
dlopen() interface, from the dynamic version of the library (the module). Since not always upstream remember to disable the static archive building in their original build system, ebuild authors should take care of disabling them, either with
--disable-static or by patching the build system (if you don’t want to stop all static lib building). And this is not my idea but a proper development procedure (and no, it does not mean any discussion: if it’s a plugin — and it’s not possible to make it a builtin — you shouldn’t install the archive file! Full stop!).
Now, you can see where this brings us again: more
.la files that are often currently installed and are not useful at all. Like
.la files for PAM modules (libpam does not load them through the
.la so they are not useful — and this is definitely the word of the PAM maintainer! And for PAM-related packages, that word is The Word). Let’s try to continue this way, shall we? From the leaves.