I have checked the flags needed for compiling dynamically. It should be very easy to solve, just by adding this flag to the configure:
--enable-shared This should be enough to compile Ruby runtime dynamic library and to compile Ruby interpeter executable against this lib. Reference: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/0d63a2104777e467568a31037a6573e1879870c7/configure.ac#L3136 El dom., 8 dic. 2019 15:44, Vicente Eduardo <vic...@gmail.com> escribió: > Python and Ruby link dynamically by default from the executable of the > runtime to the runtime library. Most runtimes do that, it is a good design > that allows reusing the runtime to the embedders. As exception of NodeJS > which avoids this because of a design decision related to the distribution, > and because it hasn't got an embedding API and an stable extension API > (N-API) until 8.x, and Rust, due to lack of ABI stability. > > I didn't check GHC and Java yet, but most languages that have extension > and mainly embedding API do that (JVM has embedding and extension API). > > I am not an expert about Guile but I can check the configure/Makefile of > Ruby in order to see what flags do it need to compile against the dynamic > library, and providing the static too as Debian distribution does for Ruby > (or Guix itself for Python and libpython3.7m.so). > > El sáb., 7 dic. 2019 17:44, Brett Gilio <bre...@posteo.net> escribió: > >> Vicente Eduardo <vic...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I would like to have two versions, or at least the dynamic one, that's >> the common way >> > Ruby should be built, and also the Guixy style. >> >> This actually brings up a rather interesting point. What is the Guix >> protocol on compilation for dynamic vs statically linked interpreters? >> This is a prevalent issue not just for Ruby, but for also how we handle >> GHC, Rust, JDK, and so on. >> >> Generally, I think we dynamically link most objects. _BUT_, I could be >> missing part of the story here. So I am going to wait for the higher >> powers that be to respond. >> >> In the mean time, when I get a moment, I will do some auditing on this >> package to see if the issue is just that we are missing some compilation >> procedure. Hopefully it is just as simple as that, but I still think the >> issue of linkage style (dynamic vs static linkage) remains prevalent. >> >> Hopefully we hear some noise on this soon. >> >> -- >> Brett M. Gilio >> https://git.sr.ht/~brettgilio/ >> >
