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

Re: Development packages.

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 08:54:17PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:

> I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago.  I needed to
> resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with
> Windows XP.  In the event, I was able to get a statically linked
> binary, copy it onto a floppy and run this after booting from a rescue
> disk.

It should be much simpler and faster to copy the existing binary and its
shared library dependencies from a running system than to recompile the
program from source.  It would probably be larger, so you might need to
compress it to fit onto a floppy, but it still seems easier.

If you need more than a "quick fix", a rescue CD is the way to go, as others
have mentioned.

> It's also useful when you want to provide something that "just work" with
> no extra dependencies.  While proprietary/commercial software was the
> biggest user of this, it's also useful for free software.  What if Joe
> Average would like to run my program which makes use of libstdc++, GTK+
> 2.2 and GNOME 2.4?  It's the least hassle way to achieve this.

The Debian packaging system is another way to accomplish the same goal
(among other things), and I find it preferable to static linking. :-)

> On a related note, I'd also be very happy if it was a requirement to
> build libraries with a miniumum of "-g -ggdb -gdwarf-2", and not strip
> them.  We could provide some mechanism to automatically strip
> binaries, surely?

We can do better than that.  See dh_strip --dbg-package=.

 - mdz

Reply to: