On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:02 PM, K. Fossil user < ticketpersonnal-fos...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Why don't fossil create a lite version that could be static and the full > one which will forbid the static option ? > Isn't that a good idea ? > That's like asking, "why not have a fossil which has no networking support?" and the answer is, "because it would be nearly useless." On modern Linuxes the networking libraries require dynamically libraries at runtime (they will link but will emit a warning while linking and may or may not work at runtime). The static limitations have NOTHING to do with fossil itself and EVERYTHING to do with the platform you are building it on. Along with the other links people have provided you about this topic, i recommend reading: https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Developer_Guide/lib.compatibility.static.html (read the first sentence) http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3430400/linux-static-linking-is-dead (especially read the first/most highly-rated answer) -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
