static libs ... again

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 21:34 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > A USER never has any requirements for static libs.
> 
> As I said in another thread, there is a demand for static libs, especially
> math stuff, to have portable binaries, in time and accross linux 
> distributions. 
And you failed to explain :)

> It is really handy to be able to compile a model statically
> and then put the executable on any computer to run it.
And what if your compiled binaries are buggy? What if the ABI to the
libraries underneath your libraries change?

You'd have to recompile everything.

Any what makes math libraries special wrt. to shared libs? 
Except that they may suffer from some speed penalty, because math apps
typically call them frequently, I don't see what makes them different
from other "computational expensive" libraries. 

>  And it may also
> be nice to be able to rerun a model some time after, without a need to
> recompile. I don't have discussed about that subject with a lot of people
> but in the team I work with we like to compile statically math and plotting
> stuff.
Your argumentation is the same as many people come up with when it comes
to this topic. IMO, you guys are just trying to "sanction" your
malpractice/bad habits (no punt intended).

Bundle the shared math libs you had used to compile your applications
with your applications, or better package them into packages allowing
parallel installation (compat-packages) and all you say will be resolve,
except that your application binaries will be (much?) smaller.

> I have absolutely no idea about the number of people interested by static
> libs, but I don't see any reason to avoid them when there is no security
> issue, as it allows to build portable binaries.
Cf. above. Security only is one aspect, there are many more.

Ralf