On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 19:51 -0600, Matthew Fischer wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ted Gould <t...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 17:37 -0400, Scott Sweeny wrote: > > > One thing click could do is look (at build time) at what external > libraries an > > application makes use of and if those libraries aren't included in > the system > > image include them in the click package itself, then at runtime > ensure that > > those libraries are properly linked into the application. > > > > Is this something we'd like to pursue? > > > > > Why wouldn't you just statically link them? Seems like > roughly the same for most applications that have a single > binary. > > > In this specific instance we ended up in a black hole of static > linking, I had about 4-5 libs specified before I found some for which > we don't ship static stuff. Neither Scott nor I could figure out how > to make Qt allow us to statically link some thing and dynamically link > others. That would have also solved this specific issue. Is that > possible?
Well, I can't promise no black holes, that would violate the laws of physics ;-) You can do any amount of static vs. dynamic linking when building, that's really just how you pass the command line to the linker. I think that the overarching issue is that in Deban/Ubuntu for the last few years we've been removing the static libraries as it was considered a waste of space, and mostly something that only caused accidents. We might want to revisit that policy at this UDS and discuss the trade-offs. They have changed dramatically with Click packaging being BYOD today. Ted
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
