On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 11:18:43PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Axel Thimm (Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > All I'm saying is that we shouldn't continue to support this sort of > > > fundamentally-unsupportable setup ad nauseam - it's time to think about > > > how to solve this in a sane manner, rather than continuing to paper > > > over the problem. I don't see how, at a minium, moving the static > > > libraries to -static packages changes things - if, as you say, everyone > > > just chucks libraries manually in /usr/local, then how is this making > > > anything worse for them? > > > > No problem at all with moving away static libs into their subpackage! > > But the thread went on to claim that static libs are not useful in > > general, and some people including myself just showed the typical use > > cases where it makes very much sense to have static libs around. > > They aren't useful *in general*. When I wrote that the claim is false that they are not useful in general, I didn't mean that "they are always useful", the opposite is that "there are many cases where statically linking makes very much sense". > It's supporting an outmoded, inefficient mode of use (shuffling > libraries and binaries around between machines and OSes), and it's > no different than various other outmoded, inefficient, past > UNIX-isms. We don't support every app parsing the password file (or > more) - we support authenticating via PAM. We don't support making > cdrecord setuid - we support fixing the kernel to DTRT. We don't > encourage logging in as root to do all tasks - we support > consolehelper, and moving to things like consolekit and separated > helpers from their UI frontends. We don't support creating specific > groups to own devices - we support pam_console and then ACLs added > via ConsoleKit. IMHO you're comapring apples and organges. Statically linking has nothing to do with being modern or outmoded, we're not in the fashion business ;) Statically linking means to closely (and efficiently!) bundle all bits that are needed to run together at a given time. No worries if your update of the gsl of lapack will influence the numerical precision duo to ieee746 shortcuts, no worries if the other machine has a different set of runtime libs (like missing some). That has nothing to do with modernism. > We don't support every single usage case that people want in Fedora Sure, that's why I asked previously in this thread whether the scientifc gorups are considered worth supporting or not. > - it's about trying to solve the problems in the right ways that > scale going forward. The moment you present a better alternative than statically linking people will listen. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpfyTMzVEoVn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
