Re: Hardcoding of .la file paths in .la files
On 14-Oct-03, 03:38 (CDT), Daniel Kobras <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 09:52:28AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > I really feel we should get rid of all these static libraries. Who uses
> > static linking now that even our glibc doesn't support it correctly
> > across versions?
> People who want their binaries to run across different Linux machines.
> People who don't want to keep up with rapidly changing library APIs.
> People who want to have reliable emergency recovery tools available.
> People who use performance critical libs on register-starved machines.
> People who need to minimize startup times.
Which doesn't, in any way, promote the idea that we should keep the .la
files. People who need/want a statically linked binary often want to
control exactly *which* libraries are statically linked, and will build
the link command by hand.
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net