I would remove the static option altogether and never install the .a file.

Why the static library hate? This is my second port where committer was asked to remove static libraries and I'd like to understand the rationale behind it. Are we turning into Arch Linux?

In D13685#286254, @dg_syrec.org wrote:

Why the static library hate? This is my second port where committer was asked to remove static libraries and I'd like to understand the rationale behind it. Are we turning into Arch Linux?

pkg knows when shared libraries have changed, and knows which ports will need to be reinstalled. It has (of course) no knowledge of what was statically linked. Ports should always link against shared libraries except for certain vital programs (like shells) that may need to be run in safe mode without shared libraries being mounted or available (and even then, it's a non-default option).

Hi Adam,

You're right of course about ports linkage, but most library ports are also usable outside of just being a dependency of another port. Users may have (as I do in case of misc/libpostal - the other port where we had this discussion) some proprietary software that needs to be statically linked with liblxi. Removing STATIC option (OFF by default) indeed saves a few KB and 3 lines in the svn diff, but now instead of toggling STATIC checkbox, users need to do an exploratory dive into (probably unfamiliar) port sources.

I don't think that removing static libraries from ports is the correct approach because I believe the choice of whether or not to have static libraries should be down to the port user and we should at least provide a way to easily install them if needed.

Testbuilds are fine, looks good to me