Re: packaging static lib oriented software
"James A.Treacy" <treacy@debian.org> writes:
> This may be, but the picture doesn't seem to be that simple. There
> are stories that sites have had trouble with a number of people
> running the same program when linked against a shared lib. The same
> site had no problems when they switched to running a statically
> linked version of the program.
>
> That's a little short on details and long on heresay, but I
> have no reason to doubt the story.
This is certainly not enough evidence to justify a change in policy.
Who knows if that site used -fPIC (which *is* Debian policy), and who
knows it wasn't a bug in
a) the version of the compiler used
b) the compilation options used
c) the version of ld.so
d) the version of the kernel
e) pilot error :>
In other words, there should be a good, justifiable, reproducible
reason for this, otherwise it's just wasted effort. And assuming that
Debian *does* properly demand page shared libs, the performance hit
from swapping when you've got too many copies of the static lib in RAM
may very well swamp the benefit from static compilation.
This is all assuming I understand the issue properly.
--
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>
PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: