add INSTALL_STATIC_LIBS buid option

[remicollet]

to allow to not install the static library

As RPM packaging Guidelines disallow static libraries
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries

Packages including libraries SHOULD exclude static libs as far as possible (e.g., by configuring with --disable-static). Applications linking against libraries SHOULD link against shared libraries not static versions.

[maxirmx]

@remicollet
Thank you for the issue. I do not think we need an additional option, it is a bug in rnp packaging that needs to be fixed.

[remicollet]

This has to be managed upstream in the CMakeLists else the installed /usr/lib64/cmake/rnp/ files will have reference to the static library and will be unusable.

Downstream (packaging) can remove the *.a file (a common practice), but cmake will have to be fixed, so this new option is really the simple way, have cmake generate the proper file.

Of course, this patch can be used "only" for packaging, but as it has no impact in standard build... and other distros may need them... and I hate having not upstreamable patch...

[maxirmx]

It was incorrect optimization.

Existing build script always creates static library. If BUILD_SHARED_LIBS is ON it repackages static library into shared library.
So if someone needs both shared and static the same build procedure is run twice

I will rollback it so that BUILD_SHARED_LIBS does not install static library

[maxirmx]

You may be right though ... An INSTALL may be better approach

[remicollet]

I will rollback it so that BUILD_SHARED_LIBS does not install static library

Thanks (and indeed version 0.16.x was OK)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (7e63ae6) 83.48% compared to head (1f5a82a) 83.49%.

❗ Current head 1f5a82a differs from pull request most recent head d1c59d9. Consider uploading reports for the commit d1c59d9 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2071   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.48%   83.49%           
=======================================
  Files         159      159           
  Lines       31957    31957           
=======================================
+ Hits        26679    26681    +2     
+ Misses       5278     5276    -2     

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ronaldtse]

@maxirmx can you help approve if good to go? Thanks.

[maxirmx]

@ronaldtse please give me a day to think. @remicollet made a perfectly valid point about packaging. There are three options how to fix it. We shall consider both downstream requirements and CI performance. We are now running ~110 test workflows and adding a flag can bring it up to 150.
I am sorry for this delay.

[maxirmx]

I propose to rollback to the previous algorithm -- #2076
It means double run for installation/packaging if both libraries are needed but it loooks like there are no complains