[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bits from dpkg developers - dpkg 1.16.1

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Couldn't we get rid of static libraries altogether, replacing static
> linking with ahead-of-time dynamic linking?

Well, the normal usecase for static libraries and static linking is to
produce self-contained objects.  If you can link a bunch of dynamic
objects into a self-contained object that behaves as a static-linked
object would, I'd say that yes, we could probably do away with static

I do think it is a bad idea, though.  We don't provide libraries just
for ourselves, we also provide them for the user to use when building
his own stuff and they might have other usecases.

Doing away with static libraries does not look like a service to our
users at first glance[1].  Fixing [upstream] any braindead crap that
gets in the way of proper static linking, OTOH, is useful to

[1] but I don't feel strong enough about it to get in the way if we do
decide to drop static libs.

  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Reply to: