From: Dima K. <no...@di...> - 2014-01-18 22:27:51
|
jef...@gm... writes: > On 01/18/2014 04:39 PM, Dima Kogan wrote: >> jef...@gm... writes: >> >>> Are there any specific reasons we're statically linking against >>> libtu/libmainloop/libextl/etc or why we can't switch to shared >>> libraries? History/inertia? >> If libwhatever is not used for anything else, static linking is less >> error prone, faster, etc. Why do you want shared libs? > > Thanks! It's a combination of things. The primary instigator is with > regard to Fedora's packaging guidelines in that they prefer shared vs. > static, and it including lib* in a package causes quite a commotion, > even if lib* is only used by the software being packaged. While they do > allow special cases, I'm trying to be "a good team player", so to speak. > I also ask because libtu, libextl, and libmainloop are used in several > places (especially the first two), so I thought it would make sense to > make them into shared libraries. Particularly since everything is > released as one package now. Hi Jeff. I looked at the (debian) packages, and those libraries are linked into more than just the notion executable. There're a few more executables (ion-statusd, ion-completefile, etc). So yes, those libraries should be shared. Otherwise (with static linking), there's no reason to ship the libraries in the package, so static linking shouldn't be a huge problem for Fedora. I suspect they strongly oppose shipping static-only libraries, which the packages need not contain anyway. The resulting duplicated code is less than ideal, but this shouldn't be a deal breaker. Am I missing something? dima |