Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Matt Brubeck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > We shouldn't be shipping or using static libraries.
>>
>> Why not? I know we shouldn't be linking to static libraries in our
>> packaged software, but having the static libraries available is
>> important for some end-users and local administrators.
>
> Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local
> administrators using static libraries is rather dated and rarely the
> case these days.
I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to
resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with
Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked
binary, copy it onto a floppy and run this after booting from a rescue
disk.
So, it's very useful for rescue situations, where you can't rely on a
whole suite of shared libs, or any installation at all.
It's also useful when you want to provide something that "just work"
with no extra dependencies. While proprietary/commercial software was
the biggest user of this, it's also useful for free software. What if
Joe Average would like to run my program which makes use of libstdc++,
GTK+ 2.2 and GNOME 2.4? It's the least hassle way to achieve this.
> Regardless, we shouldn't be using them and the end
> users and local admins who actually need to link against things
> statically can figure out the dependencies.
Since nearly all -dev packages come with static libs and this is not
forbidded (it's mentioned in Policy) I won't stop using them. I'll by
happy to stop as soon as Policy forbids/discourages it.
On a related note, I'd also be very happy if it was a requirement to
build libraries with a miniumum of "-g -ggdb -gdwarf-2", and not strip
them. We could provide some mechanism to automatically strip
binaries, surely?
--
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
