Re: Static libraries in development packages
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Goswin von Brederlow <email@example.com> wrote:
> Static linking of libc6 basically never makes sense. The same can be
> said for many other libs.
Yes, static linking of libc6 is a corner case that makes entirely statically
linked programs a bad idea. However mostly statically linked programs make a
lot of sense in some situations.
After Lenny was released I developed fixes for a number of serious library
bugs that caused an important application written for one of my clients to
crash. As some of the deployment platforms couldn't be guaranteed to have the
patched versions of the libraries without extreme effort (due to customers
having some interesting procedures for determining which updates were applied)
the easiest solution was to statically link every library that needed a patch.
I could have done that static linking without help from the DD in question
(making my own static libraries under /usr/local isn't THAT hard). But the
result is better if you can modify build-depends and just use static libraries
that come as part of the package.
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/