[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Shared vs Static (please read)



On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 19:25 -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:48:26PM +0000, Peter Jr. Quiring wrote:
> > I tried to move a binary built on FC5 to a FC4 system and of course it 
> > didn't work (openssl version mismatch).  So by removing static libs Fedora 
> > will be hurting the little guys (like me).   I also know that some 
> 
> openssl is a problem area certainly.
> 
> > functions (like dlopen()) currently do not work in static mode, but some of 
> > my apps don't need this functionality.  I've written my own DNS client, so 
> > the gethostaddr() etc functions I don't need.  Does anyone know if it would 
> > be possible to use most libraries as static and maybe just use the shared 
> > version of dl, or glibc?
> 
> To be honest Fedora is aimed at being cutting edge rather than being the
> proprietary high stability oriented platform. What you say is I think quite
> fair in terms of C++. For C the LSB has it mostly licked, for C++ the changing
> C++ ABI has been problematic.
> 

Both the compiler ABI and the libstdc++ ABI. The former is
understandable, but there's no excuse for the latter.

Shared libraries using GNU C++ on ELF systems are a path to madness, and
they'll stay that way until the libstdc++ people start practicing basic
software maintenance skills, or glibc's ld.so gets support for
DT_1_GROUP.

-- 
Nicholas Miell <nmiell comcast net>


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]