On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 04:27:02PM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > > I regard myself as falling into the niche of scientic/numerical > programming. However, I see no advantage to myself being able to > compile staticly linked binaries in the name of portability. It > doesn't really gain much, and actually I have seen doing such things > give rather bizarre results. I have exactly the opposite experience. I have issues with g77/gfortran incompatibilities, for example. Or missing libraries on platform I am not administrator. Or libraries with different sonames. In what case did you have bizarre results? > Besides which, if you were to want to statically link a binary and > send it to run elsewhere, Fedora isn't the platform to be doing it on. Why not? > If you're looking for that sort of portability, you should be using a > consistent and reliable platform for the calculations, like RHEL. What a bizarre suggestion. Fedora should be good for numerical models. If fedora isn't good for that RHEL wont be either. > The right fix here is to educate scientific programmers as to why > statically linking in libraries doesn't actually get them what they > want, and that it is broken. I don't want to give false ideas, in many real life cases statically linking numerical models gave a binary that gave a similar result on all the platforms. I prefer educating people that believe that static linking doesn't bring in portability. -- Pat -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
