[Fedora-packaging] Re: paragraph on shipping static numerical libs
pertusus at free.fr
Mon May 28 18:04:56 UTC 2007
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 06:10:36PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Help create properly autotooled rpm transparently for people that don't
> care about infrastructure stuff. You already have cluster managers that
> use rpm as a payload. That takes care of the deployment, of the
> interfering stuff in /usr/local, etc
Ok, I am not really knowledgable on that matters. Is there something
> You focus too much on the current technical solution and not enough on
> user needs. The problem is not to replicate the same old & broken
> solution ad vitam eternam but to make the correct technical solution
> attractive enough for users to switch.
I am very open to new solutions, but the use of static libs is not
necessarily broken in all cases.
> I won't share nuggets of ass-backwards common wisdom here,
I don't understand that sentence, ca donne quoi en francais ?
> that would
> strike to close to my employer systems, but sometimes you need to
> re-asses why a particular solution was chosen at a time and if you can
> not achieve the original goals better now with stuff that was not
> available a decade ago.
Once again I am open to new stuff, but I haven't seen anything that
would be as simple and effective as building statically (in the case of
specific scientific apps I am referring to, of course). And the long
thread on fedora-devel only comfort that view since people complained
about dstatically compiling but only proposed very complicated
alternatives. If those alternatives can be automated and give the same
advantages, it could become usable, but currently this is not the case
(or nobody pointed to the right solution).
More information about the Fedora-packaging