[oe] Revert "package bbclass: strip static libs as well"

[Leon Woestenberg]

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Stanislav Brabec <utx at penguin.cz> wrote:
> But I would do even one step forward:
> In last 12 years I did not need any of system static library instances.
>
I did, I do not see disabling static libraries as a step forward.

Not that I really really NEEDED it, but it reduced the footprint,
boot/link/load time on a single process firmware application to such
an amount that static linking was desired.

> With exception of bootloader authors, almost nobody else needs static
> libraries.
>
Static linking is a valid approach for embedded use, let's not cripple it more.

I think we should build most of what we can build during the compile
and install and stage tasks, then reduce what we need in later stages.

> That is why I would like to introduce new global default:
> --disable-static (via variable, site config or so).
>
> Only packages that explicitly require or explicitly build the static
> library will have them (in -dev or -static sub-package, see above).
>
Typically libraries should stage the static, so that dependent
packages can choose to statically link against them.

I would keep the discussing on how to package statics and their
corresponding debug info.

Regards,
-- 
Leon