On 22-May-07, 13:40 (CDT), Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 09:19:52PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Why should we spend time and space to provide something that doesn't
> > do anything useful?[1]
>
> I also once heard an argument that static libraries are easier to
> maintain. While I disagreed at first, it started to make sense when it
> was explained that in-house software in /usr/local which does not add
> dependencies to the package management system easily breaks on upgrades.
>
> If you really think dropping static libraries is the best way forward,
> then I think you should make a case for it that also explains why we do
> give our users all possible and impossible options by linking our
> software against every library in sight, while at the same time not
> providing them with the basic option of compiling their software
> statically. Moreover, remember that most, if not all, other
> distributions have it, meaning that newbie-oriented documentation
> assumes it'll work, and that not providing it for no good reason will
> probably only serve to annoy and confuse the user.
Those are good reasons. Those are different reasons than "static
libraries are faster", which was the previous argument for keeping them.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
