Re: Bits from dpkg developers - dpkg 1.16.1
On 2011-10-02 23:08, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
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?
[1] but I don't feel strong enough about it to get in the way if we do
decide to drop static libs.
I would defend static libs for scientific apps. Static libs show a
significant performance
benefit (2-40%, median around 5-10% but sometimes far more with C++
apps) and
so are standard in HPC still; so I ship them in my packages even though
they are not used
much within the software shipped _by_ debian, but are used by our users.
Note: this is for static libs without -fPIC. I'm not sure there is much
benefit in shipping
PIC static libs, (or potentially PIE codes); they are also highly
unlikely to be used in
'web-facing' environments, and be security-sensitive; they are likely to
be built
by the user, used by that particular user alone, and hence should not be
built with any
security features( eg PIE) that cause performance degradation.
--
Alastair McKinstry ,<alastair@sceal.ie> ,<mckinstry@debian.org> http://blog.sceal.ie
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulter, Economist.
Reply to: