2014-10-02 13:04, Matthew Hall: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:26:34PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, whats the impetus behind a single shared library > > here? > > Is it just to ease application linking operations? If so, it almost seems > > to me > > that we should abandon the individual linking method and just use this as > > the > > default output (and do simmilarly for the static linking build) > > Not clear if you wrote "single shared library" on purpose instead of "single > static library". But for me the objective of COMBINE_LIBS usage would be > getting a "single static library" for my app, which just works, and > eliminates > need of start-group, end-group, weird library ordering issues, etc. I'm not > interested personally in a "shared library" because it'd run slower. > > Personally my preference would be to do both the single libs and multiple > libs > in static format by default. Disk space is cheap, let's maximize user freedom > and flexibility. But shared lib, since it performs less well, should be > discouraged by default, although allowed if needed... some people prefer it > because it's easier to patch security vulns if you can replace a buggy > library > for all the code on a system.
We need to simplify build options. So I'm fine to remove COMBINE_LIBS option to always enable it. About making only one single static library, I think it's a good idea if it brings a real code simplification. So the conclusion is to nack this patchset in favor of above changes. Sergio, comments? -- Thomas
