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?
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
> 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
What some people call efficiency, I call rending a distro
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 :-)