Re: BLAST+ speed & build issues
On 08/18/2011 04:53 PM, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> Olivier Sallou <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> I will try to have a look to patch this in the package. However I will
>> go on vacation end of this week. So it will not be done before some time...
> No problem, the current packaging ignores test suite errors.
What is special about Debian is not only that there are binary packages.
We also have the means to let our audience recompile packages in a
sufficiently easy way.
Now, if you possibly say that getting towards a static variant is not
more difficult than some
LDFLAGS=-static dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
then this would be rather stimulating. If it is not like this, could
we get it towards it? Those who need it static then shall compile it
themselves this way.
>> I am not really fond of providing 2 packages (one dynamic/ one static).
> Me neither; I just have opinions regarding how best to do so if necessary.
> Meanwhile, it's occurred to me that it may be possible to keep both startup
> time and package size down by arranging to produce a single consolidated
> executable along the lines of busybox; I've asked my usual contact on the
> BLAST team whether he has any concerns about such an approach.
Is dpkg-shlibdeps complaining much about unnecessarily linked libraries?
Is there a point in asking the community to find functions and other symbols
that should receive a "static" to reduce the size of tables (never thought
that I'd ever write something like this later than 1992 :o) ). Is this
all a problem of ELF? I am still shocked.