In general, no, it is not portable in the sense that a compiled library can be linked on an arbitrary other system. The compiled library has to be compatible to the target architecture, the OS, the compiler system, to name some.
But you have another choice, concluded from your comment: It seems that you also provide some shell script or makefile to build the programs.
Because a library consists of "just" a set of compiled translation units before some of them get linked into the programs, you can take the set of sources of these translations unit and compile them with the sources of each program, where appropriate.
As an example, let's say you have 2 functions (each in its own source file) you use in different combinations in 3 programs. "prg1" uses func1(), "prg2" uses func2(), and "prg3" uses both.
This can be the commands to build the programs with a (static) library:
gcc -c func1.c -o func1.o gcc -c func2.c -o func2.o ar -r lib.a func1.o func2.o gcc prg1.c lib.a -o prg1 gcc prg2.c lib.a -o prg2 gcc prg3.c lib.a -o prg3
Instead of the library you compile the programs' sources directly:
gcc prg1.c func1.c -o prg1 gcc prg2.c func2.c -o prg2 gcc prg3.c func1.c func2.c -o prg3
The results are the same, at least as long as you had linked statically to the library.
But even with a shared (dynamic) library the approach will be the same. Shared libraries "only" save some RAM if several programs using them are run concurrently. If only one program runs at a time, a dynamically linked program might need more RAM and loads slower.
