*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Phil Evans wrote:
On a different topics, is there really a reason for not using static
libraries? Dynamic libraries are a constant pain, both to users and
maintainers, because there are always different versions on different
machines (and of course we don't have all our machines on the same OS
version, like I imagine most people). Also the obscure error messages
"can't find right version of libthingy-99.9.dylib" or whatever is deeply
confusing to nearly all of us.
I love stand-alone binaries with no external dependencies
Phil
I can only agree to this! And who cares nowadays about the additional
disk space that statically compiled binaries require?
Dirk.
On 11 Jan 2007, at 00:39, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
William Scott wrote:
Or you could just build ccp4-onlylibs-dev, use the include/ccp4.setup-x
file in THAT, and source it before building coot. If you build
ccp4-onlylibs-dev with only static libs, then you can even get rid
of the
ccp4-onlylibs-dev installation afterwards.
That is the way I have been doing it.
Thanks for the suggestion -- it does provide an escape route. Being
forced to use static libraries is really a hack, though. It also
violates our packaging policy because it makes security updates very
difficult. People are still finding static and bundled copies of
vulnerable zlib from a year ago and more. It also means everyone's going
to be building essentially the same libraries twice for no good reason.
--
****************************************
Dirk Kostrewa
Paul Scherrer Institut
Biomolecular Research, OFLC/110
CH-5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland
Phone: +41-56-310-4722
Fax: +41-56-310-5288
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sb.web.psi.ch
****************************************
