roken. The option was
added for some software outside of OpenPKG's scope and at the same
time breaks the major design goal of OpenPKG instances being fully
"stand-alone" as the binaries are linked against the shared libraries.
Options are fine as long as they do not break anything within
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
I was trying to get the HP Management Agent to run under Linux with
OpenPkg but struggle with the static compiled snmpd. I have done the
following patch a while ago for our local repository and would like to
commit it in official cvs. Any objecti
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005, Martin Konold wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 15 September 2005 08:01 schrieb Michael van Elst:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 03:04:31AM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
> > > My personal main issue with the static linking is that in case I am
> > > developing a package f
Am Donnerstag 15 September 2005 08:01 schrieb Michael van Elst:
Hi Michael,
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 03:04:31AM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
> > My personal main issue with the static linking is that in case I am
> > developing a package for OpenPKG I have a _very_ hard time to make
> > _certain_
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 03:04:31AM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
> My personal main issue with the static linking is that in case I am
> developing
> a package for OpenPKG I have a _very_ hard time to make _certain_ that the
> correct libraries get picked up during compile time.
With dynamic li
Am Dienstag 13 September 2005 12:28 schrieb Ralf S. Engelschall:
> These are mainly the two major issues AFAIK which trigger the requests
> for shared libraries.
My personal main issue with the static linking is that in case I am developing
a package for OpenPKG I have a _very_ hard t
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005, Birger Krägelin wrote:
>> So, the main argument against shared libraries is the support
>> of multiple instances, currently.
>
>What's the argument against static linking?
>Memory shouldn't be a problem anymore...
I think that there are so
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005, Birger Krägelin wrote:
>
> > > So, the main argument against shared libraries is the support
> > > of multiple instances, currently.
> >
> > What's the argument against static l
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:18:02AM +0200, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> of our packages ;-) I really like to see this shared library support,
> but currently I cannot imagine how we can achieve this in a MINIMUM
> INTRUSIVE way... Any particular suggestions and ideas on this topic?
Vielleicht ist
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005, Birger Krägelin wrote:
> > So, the main argument against shared libraries is the support
> > of multiple instances, currently.
>
> What's the argument against static linking?
> Memory shouldn't be a problem anymore...
Yes, neither HD nor RAM
Birger Krägelin wrote:
> What's the argument against static linking?
> Memory shouldn't be a problem anymore...
Security updates are harder with static linking, as one must rebuild all
packages using the library, rather than just the library itself.
Tres.
--
===
> So, the main argument against shared libraries is the support
> of multiple instances, currently.
What's the argument against static linking?
Memory shouldn't be a problem anymore...
Birger
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Network Operations C
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005, Matthias Kurz wrote:
> So, the main argument against shared libraries is the support of
> multiple instances, currently.
Yes, indeed. The support of multiple instances is of the few OpenPKG
major design goals. Hence we cannot break it easily just to support a
new f
Hi.
So, the main argument against shared libraries is the support of
multiple instances, currently.
Can anybody tell me what platforms have this problem ? Solaris and
any other platform that supports placing the "rpath" in the archives
should have no problems in this regard
g OpenOffice on Linux requires
building unixodbc and myodbc with shared libraries. Am I wrong on this or
is there some way programs like OpenOffice can use the static libraries?
Bill
--
INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO B
gt; Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 3:50 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: scripting language extensions - shared libraries
>
>
> It took a while to get the option where I wanted it - but now
> python will
> use openpkg static l
red -mimpure-text;g" Makefile
%{l_make} %{l_mflags -O}
%install
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrews, Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 10:07 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: scripting language exten
17 matches
Mail list logo
