Vicente Eduardo <vic...@gmail.com> writes: > I would like to have two versions, or at least the dynamic one, that's the > common way > Ruby should be built, and also the Guixy style.
This actually brings up a rather interesting point. What is the Guix protocol on compilation for dynamic vs statically linked interpreters? This is a prevalent issue not just for Ruby, but for also how we handle GHC, Rust, JDK, and so on. Generally, I think we dynamically link most objects. _BUT_, I could be missing part of the story here. So I am going to wait for the higher powers that be to respond. In the mean time, when I get a moment, I will do some auditing on this package to see if the issue is just that we are missing some compilation procedure. Hopefully it is just as simple as that, but I still think the issue of linkage style (dynamic vs static linkage) remains prevalent. Hopefully we hear some noise on this soon. -- Brett M. Gilio https://git.sr.ht/~brettgilio/
