raising an issue about static linking policy
Hello,
I've recently packaged subsurface 4.2 for experimental, because it depends on
libgit2 which is in experimental…
I think you might want to read these posts:
http://lists.hohndel.org/pipermail/subsurface/2014-August/014520.html
http://lists.hohndel.org/pipermail/subsurface/2014-August/014524.html
> And this is just one reason why distributions should not do the whole
> insane "dynamic linking only" strategy.
> Dynamic linking should be for core distro packages only. Not for random
> other stuff. That's *particularly* true for random oddball libraries (is
> libgit2 but also libdivecomputer or even things like libxml).
> The advantages of dynamic linking are totally negated by (a) versioning
> issues and (b) lack of wide sharing.
> Just look at what all external entities end up *having* to do (ie think
> valve etc). Debian should rethink its policies wrt dynamic libraries,
> because the current one is wrong for users, and wrong for developers. But
> also wrong for purely technical reasons.
> Could someone involved with Debian please try to take this issue up? I'm
> fed up with how the kernel makes binary compatibility such a priority, only
> to have distributions throw all that sanity and effort away.
> Linus
I have no opinion on the topic at the moment, except that it is no ideal to
have the new version stuck in experimental, but I thought it is worth to relay
and have some discussion about this.
Best
--
Salvo Tomaselli
"Io non mi sento obbligato a credere che lo stesso Dio che ci ha dotato di
senso, ragione ed intelletto intendesse che noi ne facessimo a meno."
-- Galileo Galilei
http://ltworf.github.io/ltworf/
Reply to: