On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net> wrote: [...] > This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really > *really* using static linking in 2011?
Yes, in my company we link almost all our own libraries statically to our own applications. (however, we use some own pkg-config) (on linux, we link libownlib.a but not -static) We do so for several reasons. For some embedded devices dynamic linking is no real option for applications or can have other disadvantages. For linux packages, static linking helps to ensure that a tested and qualified binary behaves correctly, even if the target system has different lib versions. So usally we link our libs statically and the system libs dynamically and, if in doubt, ask for specific versions (linking everything statically can lead to e.g. LGPL licensing difficulties, AFAIK). When having a small lib "fan-in", let's say just needing glibc or so, you can even install the resulting binary (or RPM/deb/xxx package) on a differnt linux version / distribution, because usually the used parts of the library interface is really stable. That's really great. Very highly skilled professionally sustainable working experts developers who build GNU/linux (including libs, cc tool chain, autotools, distro standards and so much more) made this possible. It is fun working with it. oki, Steffen
