On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:05:38 -0800 (PST) "Daniel Quinlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't think of a single advantage to linking libz statically. > External library dependencies are not a disadvantage, they're an > advantage. The single advatage is that linking statically makes our packaging system more robust incase something goes wrong. If dpkg depends on libz and libz becomes unusable (deleted broken whater) then it could be a major hasle to fixed. If apt is installed (and it is statically linked against libz) then it could used to fix libz by doing "apt-get install libz", but dpkg is "Essential: yes", apt isnt so dpkg should be more solid. If apt wasnt around and dpkg was broken the user would have to extract the libz by hand, using ar and gzip and tar, which a lot of users wouldnt know how to do. If your using an embedded system then ive implemented a solid dpkg-deb in busybox which is only 20kB compiled by itself depends only on libc, has gunzip, tar and ar inbuilt. There is a version of dpkg in busybox as well, its 33kB, but you should use the real dpkg if you can. Glenn
