Re: Packaging certain libraries as "end-user software"
Hallo,
* Bas Wijnen [Sun, Jul 19 2015, 04:10:21AM]:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 05:30:04PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > It's less of a library than an environment used for research. Compiling
> > is just a required step to run your code, but applications are usually
> > not distributed in binary form.
>
> What is the benefit of providing a shared library at all? Why not ship only a
> static library?
This is not a rhetorical question, is it?
The obvious benefit is the whole principle of a library: common code is
shared across multiple binaries. I prefer a lib of 2MB size and 5x
executable (100kB each) over 10MB.
The package size might still be ok (xz works well on duplicated code)
but the installed size isn't.
> > Changing the soname often is not an issue; it's just for Debian if the
> > package name changes with the soname...
>
> It's not a problem if the SONAME is changed a lot. The problem is that it
That's a "problem" that has made me wondering for years. We are
over-complicating things; we interpret the simple fact of "has a SONAME"
as an obligation to make the thing available to all potential users of
that library... even if there are no users who care! And won't care in
future because it's clear that upstream is not using a stable API.
If it isn't clear, than making it clear should be the easier mission.
Regards,
Eduard.
--
<leichenwagen>Erst wenn der letzte Programmierer eingesperrt und die letzte Idee patentiert ist, werdet ihr merken, daß Anwälte nicht programmieren können
Reply to: