Re: [clisp-list] Staticaly linking clisp and FFIs

[Bruno H. <br...@cl...>]

> > What are the pros/cons of binary distribution? Why is anything
> > not binary distribution?
>
> for improved usability of distributions, I guess.
> (a distribution linked on the target host is more reliable)

There is no general pro or cons of distributing an executable versus a
static library, except for the unavailability of the compiler and linker
on some platforms.

Other than that, it mostly depends on whether the host you are building
on has a recent or an old set of system shared libraries. Old is better
here, since vendors usually only add functions to libc and rarely remove
some functions. If the host you use for the build is not the oldest OS
version, then distributing the static library is better: when you distribute
a Unix executable, it is _certain_ to not run on older versions of the OS
(thanks to the shared library versioning check), whereas when you distribute
a static library, it has good chances to link and work fine on older versions
of the OS.

So the general rule is:
  IF platform frequently comes without compiler and linker
    THEN use BINARY_DISTRIB
    ELSE
      IF platform has strict libc version checking
        THEN use static library distribution
        ELSE use BINARY_DISTRIB

Bruno