Re: Linking a static library with -fPIC for flex
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Linking a static library with -fPIC for flex"):
> I was initially going to just provide libfl.a with position
> independent code, which would have prevented the FTBS breakage for
> scanner containing shared libraries, at the expense of a register
> lost for binaries that were otherwise statically linked, and perhaps
> slower execution speeds. When I broached this on IRC, people
> commented that I could provide libfl_pic.a in addition to libfl.a ,
> but compile them both with -fPIC, and transition back at some later
> point to having a non position independent static libfl.a
I think this latter is the right approach.
> Then I realized I was falling into the trap of preferring
> convenience to correctness; the right thing to identify and fix
> packages building shared objects linked to non relocatable code. So,
> now these packages can link to libfl_pic.a, and binaries can
> continue to link with libfl.a.
No, you were `falling' into the `trap' of providing a sensible
transition plan. Backporters and luddites everywhere will thank you
if you don't break things when you don't need to.