On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 03:27:54PM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 08:46:33PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > 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. > > In this case please reread this thread, that's exactly what we'd like > ISVs to avoid and all the reasons stated in the thread why static > linking is not desirable for that purpose apply to the vast majority > of ISV uses of static linking. But you will not force ISV to suddenly invest more support into this. They will just drop Fedora as a build platform and still offer static builds, now with even more issues as they will most certainly be using another distro for creating them. At the end it will mean that "HP storage solutions work under Windows 2008 (TM), Novell Linux 12, but not RHEL6 or FC8". -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpuPGVLDQkUu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
