It was suggested on http://trac.sagemath.org/14699 that we rehash the old arguments why static libraries have no place in a modular software system. So here we go: * No easy way to tell which static library (much less its version) is used by a binary * Space (both disk and memory) bloat, code will be copied into each binary. * Inability to benefit from updates: Once statically linked, your binary will never use a newer (and potentially bug-fixed) version of the library * Various debug tools (LD_PRELOAD, LD_PROFILE, LD_AUDIT) don't work * No ASLR => security hole
The counterargument is, basically, since you already had to compile stuff for a shared library you might just as well install a static version, too. And there might still be platforms that can't build shared libraries, though I'm not aware of one that also compiles a non-trivial part of Sage; You certainly can't use Cython without shared libraries. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
