On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 08:28:54PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Maybe the real answer is something entirely different: if it was easy to > automatically package up a binary and all the libs it needs into > something that's self executable/self contained... that would take care > of the requirement too. Maybe some answer is the real thing you mean http://statifier.sourceforge.net/? > However I think it's very important to separate out "we want portable" > and "we require static linking", since just about ALL arguments for > static linking actually were not about static linking but about wanting > portable. That kind of argument separation and liquidation is an eloquent speaker's trick. In that sense there are no arguments in favour of dynamic linking either, Ulrich wants to have security and maintainability, he doesn't really care about dynamic linking, right? ;) FWIW again from the number crunching community, sometimes statically linking numerical libs shows performance gains (although when the problem domain is of that kind the libs tend to be headers-only with inlining), and some only commercial available libs only offer static libs. Which brings yet another argument in favour of not disallowing statically builds: ISVs love to use these in order to have one build for the whole Linux world. Not that these builds are ever a joy to the users, and some may say the noone cares about proprietary browser plugins or java vms, but I would be sad to not have a Linux way to partition HP storage for example. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpkf6tbevpsQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
