Re: packaging questions
>From: email@example.com (Sue Campbell)
>Subject: packaging questions
>To: firstname.lastname@example.org (debian-devel)
>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 22:44:16 -0400 (EDT)
[first issue skipped]
>What do people think of the idea of creating a package with only
>static libraries, i.e. a library package without a -dev version and
>no shared libs? Another issue in favor of this is the size
>of the libraries, e.g. the shared library for lapack is almost
>3M in size. Only having one version of the library will save
>a lot of space.
I don't know exactly what you mean by saving a lot of space; do you mean
memory-use or disk space?
I'm not a developer, but just suppose that in the future more and more
large computational packages using these libraries get packaged for
Debian; wouldn't it be an advantage to make lapack, cephes, etc. shared
libraries as opposed to static? As far as I understand, the advantage
of shared libraries with respect to memory use increases if the number
of running programs using that particular library increases (look at the
X-windows libraries for example).
Also: only one version of the library will certainly save lots of disk space,
but if this is the shared library, then *only* people who wish to link the
entire lapack etc. statically into their program (increasing the executable
by several Mb :-( ) will have need of the liblapack.a static lib.
At my work, we use two IBM RS-6000's running AIX for heavy computational work,
and several large quantum chemistry programs are running on them (e.g.
Gaussian 94, Gamess-UK); If only these programs could share the low-level
mathematical routines, it would save a bit on memory-use IMHO, and even though
they all have memory use (RSS) in the order of dozens of megabytes, every
little bit helps reduce swapping?
This is just my dfl. 0.05 of opinion, of course.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .