That's a good point. I'm only going to be distributing a few binaries that have to link against libprotobuf so that's probably a better idea.
Thanks, Pete On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Kenton Varda<ken...@google.com> wrote: > FWIW, one way to make your life a lot easier might be to statically link > against libprotobuf. That way you do not need to distribute anything, and > you do not need to distribute a new package when you update to a new version > of protocol buffers. This is the approach we take at Google -- we > statically link everything except basic system libraries. > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Peter Keen <peter.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> >> I was wondering if anyone out there had built an RPM spec file for >> protobuf. I'll be needing to distribute the C++ runtime library to a >> set of machines and I'd like to be able to chuck something in a shared >> yum repo and be done with it, rather than having to copy around a >> tarball or something. >> >> Thanks, >> Pete >> >> > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
