On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:21:11 -0500, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Matthias Saou wrote: > > I'm fairly certain the static linking is done on purpose: to be able to > still run redcarpet, in the aftermath of a biffed-up machine with > (possibly) missing shared libraries. He didn't say it was unintentional... he just said it was a nasty thing to do, from a 3rd party packager perspective. In fact I would argue that as a general rule for human behavior, the really nasty things tend to be intentional. -jef"questions the logic of staticly linking a high level management tool, against the chances of a doomsday scenario invovling lots of missing libraries. Makes you wonder, as to how a system gets in a position like that. Does the high level tool make a habit of inadvertantly removing libraries when it shouldnt? And if its not a package management problem caused by a tool or mixed tool usage and is something deeper, can it really do more than fix the symptoms?"spaleta
