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
|
