On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 02:49:33PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Note that, looking at the aspell package, I don't think it has
> included the static library in years, if ever, but no bug report has
> ever been filed. Likewise, I would expect that there is little or no
> demand for static librarie
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:56:48PM +, James Troup wrote:
>> It's not about disks so much as bandwidth. Disk may be cheap, but
>> bandwidth isn't, at lesast not universally. I've also no idea who
>> would want or need static libraries in this day
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:43:39PM +, James Troup wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For the record, I *need* static libraries.
>
> Why?
Maybe for compiling programs that are used in chroot environments.
That is a case where I would like to have them.
So I'm not sure
There may also be cases where, from a security
perspective, it may be preferable to statically
link an executable so that there are fewer
potential points of compromise. Things like
forensic tools, where you might be examining a
system and you are not sure what may have been
compromised.
Doesn't
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:43:38 -0500,
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's not about disks so much as bandwidth. Disk may be cheap, but
> > bandwidth isn't, at lesast not universally. I've also no idea who
> > would want or need static libraries in this day and age, but maybe I'm
> > miss
5 matches
Mail list logo
