On Tuesday 06 March 2007, Michael Cummings wrote: > Can someone point me to the documentation regarding "If it's possible to > create either a dynamic or static library, you should create both." > (paraphrase of something vapier said at one point many moons ago, but I'm > not trying to hold mike against that). I ask because I sense a new release > of perl looming in the near future, and everytime one of the questions > we're asked is why we build both a static and a dynamic library for perl > (and to be honest, since perl isn't one of those apps you need running in > an emergency single user boot - that i'm aware of anyway - I never have a > good reference).
i dont think this has really been documented properly, but the logic behind it is pretty simple ... not providing static libraries and only providing dynamic libraries prevents people from compiling their own static applications on the fly -mike
pgpRCAQwKwRxj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
