On Thu, 2019-06-13 at 09:51 +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hassles aside, you mentioned Linux and macOS. What about literally > *all* the other platforms we support? Like AIX, NonStop, HP/UX, etc? I assumed that we were discussing providing an _option_ of building with shared libraries, rather than removing support for static libraries and only supporting shared libraries. The former is the typical model in portable projects. So, the answer to most of the (important) issues you and Brian raise is, "if it doesn't work, can't be made to work, is too slow, or is annoying for ANY other reason, then don't do it". Regarding things like publish-ability of the API, I don't know what else to say. It's FOSS, after all: anyone can do whatever they want (with respect to building and using the code) regardless of the desires of the development team. All you can do is make clear that the intent is that the API is not stable, and if they don't listen and their stuff breaks, well, as the saying goes, they get to keep both halves. Not adding any header files to the installation rules and packages is also helpful :). There's a certain amount of cold, hard reality that every FOSS project, regardless of how friendly and welcoming they aspire to be, simply can't avoid while still making progress (and staying sane). I certainly don't want to minimize the amount of work involved here, nor do I want to in any way volunteer myself to undertake any of it: as I said, I don't have strong feelings about it. I'm just saying, there's no technical reason it can't be done while maintaining the same features (such as relocatability) as the static library installs, at least on the major platforms. Cheers!
