On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:21:09PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> said: > > 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. > > Not all the number crunching community statically links. For example, > my father works for NASA, and for his project, they rebuild from source > everywhere. This is a requirement since they run the project on a > number of platforms (Linux, Solaris, Windows/Cygwin, Tru64, IRIX). You faile dot mention whether your father builds his apps statically or dynamically. Any either way, this distribution model is indeed Gentoo-like as someone else mentioned in this thread. > > 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. > > Unless these vendors include object code suitable for re-linking against > a different glibc, they are violating the LGPL if they link against > glibc. Are you sure? glibc is not GPL, it's LGPL. and how would a vendor in 2006 be able to ensure that his binaries can relinked with glibc from 2010? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpJH7VYxLHul.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
