On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 13:13 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:06:51PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > The guidelines intention is to recommend "foo-static". > > Ok, so what about rpmlint warnings? Ignore them or bugzilla rpmlint? bugzilla it against rpmlint, if you like to. I don't know where this rpmlint warning stems from. > > If I was to decide, I would reject any static library unless a pressing > > need of requiring a static lib can be demonstrated (!). > > There was a very long thread about that issue and I'd like not to repeat > it all over again. In summary, there are cases, like numerical models > where all the reason that are for dynamic libraries don't make sense (use > new version, security, dlopening, name resolution...) while compiling > statically helps being able to move programs to other hosts/linux > distros/ and so on. The other solution advocated instead of static > linking (distributing shared libs along with the program and doing a > wrapper that setes things up) is much less practical. > > Another reason may be the efficiency, as as demonstrated by Enrico > numbers on tiny daemons, linking statically may lead to much more > efficient executables. What some people call efficiency, I call rending a distro unmaintainable and pimping "Linux" - To me, it's not much different from pimping a car by installing an oxygen bottle to "make it faster". > > > > (But there are cases when user should be able to link > > > against static libs, a prominent case -- my case -- being numerical > > > models). > > You know my opinion on this argument of yours: You are abusing Linux. > > Not at all. I have specific needs. Well, your needs, i.e. "cross-distro binaries", are far from being exotic. Many people before you went into trap you still seem to be trapped into, before you, so be it :-) Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
