[Fedora-packaging] satic libs package naming
rc040203 at freenet.de
Fri Apr 20 11:27:18 UTC 2007
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 13:13 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:06:51PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > The guidelines intention is to recommend "foo-static".
> Ok, so what about rpmlint warnings? Ignore them or bugzilla rpmlint?
bugzilla it against rpmlint, if you like to.
I don't know where this rpmlint warning stems from.
> > If I was to decide, I would reject any static library unless a pressing
> > need of requiring a static lib can be demonstrated (!).
> There was a very long thread about that issue and I'd like not to repeat
> it all over again. In summary, there are cases, like numerical models
> where all the reason that are for dynamic libraries don't make sense (use
> new version, security, dlopening, name resolution...) while compiling
> statically helps being able to move programs to other hosts/linux
> distros/ and so on. The other solution advocated instead of static
> linking (distributing shared libs along with the program and doing a
> wrapper that setes things up) is much less practical.
> Another reason may be the efficiency, as as demonstrated by Enrico
> numbers on tiny daemons, linking statically may lead to much more
> efficient executables.
What some people call efficiency, I call rending a distro unmaintainable
and pimping "Linux" - To me, it's not much different from pimping a car
by installing an oxygen bottle to "make it faster".
> > > (But there are cases when user should be able to link
> > > against static libs, a prominent case -- my case -- being numerical
> > > models).
> > You know my opinion on this argument of yours: You are abusing Linux.
> Not at all. I have specific needs.
Well, your needs, i.e. "cross-distro binaries", are far from being
exotic. Many people before you went into trap you still seem to be
trapped into, before you, so be it :-)
More information about the Fedora-packaging