[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: static libs ... again

I think I get the users point by guessing and extrapolating:

Some large-scale installations will have something like /usr/local mounted onto a share in order to provide common applications for all users through this share. This is an old (IMHO bad) habit especially of former SunOS sysadmins. It is especially comfortable when installing a lot of 3rd party binary-only software. Many will use something like "modules" to set up a lot of userland variables to get this going etc.

This means a user of several distributions and different versions of the same distribution will need to compile things statically to get them work somewhat on all Linux machines that mounts this share, given that their ABI:s may vary wildly.

So while these people appreciate dynamic linking for the most common stuff that sits on the local client, they still want static linking available for their sysadmin daily tasks like this.

While such people have a niche use of static libs, we all know that the actual USE of static libs require a lot of hands-on and funny compiler flags.

For this reason I think these people are very able of installing the whole shebang and its dependencies from source and not ask their distributor to provide them with tools for this. Alternatively use another distribution which love to build things from source (Slackware, Gentoo) for this work: it is more fitted and not Fedora's ecological niche.

So if reasons like this is behind these request, IMHO we should just say "no" to static libs...

My Euro 0.01

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]