Why would you want to? That might sound flippant, but it's a serious
question. If you're building a "proper" CoApp package, the
dependencies of which are also already CoApp packages, why would you
choose to forego automatically benefiting from (compatible) updates to
those dependencies?
There is
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Philip Allison
wrote:
> There is a use case for creating a minimal, stand-alone version of a
> particular package, bundling just what it needs into a deployable
> image, but I can't remember what conclusions have been reached about
> that.
Sometimes a single exe is
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Philip Allison
> wrote:
> > There is a use case for creating a minimal, stand-alone version of a
> > particular package, bundling just what it needs into a deployable
> > image, but I can't remember what co
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Trevor Dennis wrote:
> One of the main goals of the CoApp project though is to reduce code
> duplication.
> For example, we want to get down to only one copy of ZLIB.DLL on a computer
> with all applications using that single copy. If projects start statically
> li
And this is what I get for travelling ... :D
Certainly CoApp supports the use of static libraries; and there is really only
a small set of really valuable reasons one might want to use static code.
The top of that list, is PGO (Profile Guided optimization) ... by allowing the
compiler/linker t
Certainly CoApp supports the use of static libraries;
Excellent news, thanks.
and there is really only a small set of really valuable reasons one might want
to use static code.
The top of that list, is[...]
that the compiler and operating system support the use of static libs,
and existin
Lee,
I think that one of the main reasons open source software often uses static
libraries, especially on Windows, is that it gets around a lot of the
dependency issues. You don't have to worry about dynamically loading a
strange version of a dependency library if you never dynamically load
librar
On 10/1/10 10:44 AM, Eric Schultz wrote:
Lee,
I think that one of the main reasons open source software often uses static
libraries, especially on Windows, is that it gets around a lot of the
dependency issues. You don't have to worry about dynamically loading a
strange version of a dependency l
On 10/1/2010 7:46 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Philip Allison
> wrote:
>> There is a use case for creating a minimal, stand-alone version of a
>> particular package, bundling just what it needs into a deployable
>> image, but I can't remember what conclusions have
And those that statically link, with no justification, will be placed on the
upcoming Hall of Shame page.
/rafael
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Eric Schultz wrote:
> Lee,
>
> I think that one of the main reasons open source software often uses static
> libraries, especially on Windows, is th
10 matches
Mail list logo
