Re: On static vs. dynamic linking
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 07:22:37PM +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> I apologize if this has already been discussed at length. From
> #haskell on irc.freenode.net: twb> The "haskell-debian vs. newest
> HaXml" discussion on debian-haskell twb> is just one case of many
> where a binary distribution, which can twb> only ship one version at
> a time, is being tripped up by libraries twb> wanting different
> versions of their build dependencies. AIUI this twb> problem affect
> Haskell but not C, because GHC statically links twb> everything by
> default. *Why* does GHC like to statically link twb> things?
I'm pretty sure static versus dynamic linking has nothing to do with the recent
HaXml discussion - the problem is the upwards incompatible upgrade of the -dev
package (which made existing programs relying on the stable HaXml API
unbuildable), which would have been an issue even with dynamic linking.
However, dynamic linking is probably a good thing to enable for other reasons,
should it be technically possible.
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland