Paul Smith <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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!
