On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:46:50PM -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Michael Koch wrote: > > >I really wonder why you want static libraries instead of dynamic ones. > >What is the need for this ? GCJ doesnt need them. It has its own shared > >library and some free VMs (jamvm, sablevm, kissme, cacao, etc.) use the > >share JNI libraries provided by classpath itself. > > Why do you ever want to build shared binaries? Smaller executable, or you > need it self-contained, or you're running on a single-purpose embedded > system, or you are doing tricky debugging, or you want to perform > aggressive linker optimization, or you want faster startup. > > The point is, Java is "just a language" just like C is. If a static > version of the C standard library is useful (and included in Debian), then > a static version of the Java standard library is useful (and should be in > Debian). > > As it turns out, my static java compiler (FLEX) does static linker > optimizations which require static binaries -- ld isn't quite smart enough > to put all the pieces together dynamically. Static java libraries would > be useful.
What I meant is: Is there a debian package that wants to depend on this feature enabled ? I wasn't able to find FLEX in the debian archive. Do you plan to upload it to the archive when the classpath debs provide static libraries ? Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
