> With regard to the second issue, several experienced people, including > Richard Hipp, have expressed the opinion in more than one occasion > that statically linking sqlite avoids some problems that can happen > otherwise.
OTOH, all people involved in supporting Linux distributions advocate against static inclusion and for use of dynamic libraries all the time so that if some bug or security vulnerability is fixed in SQLite it could be easily updated for everybody by upgrading only one package. I don't know though what they suggest to do if you need to use version of SQLite newer than distribution is currently providing. Pavel On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Pierpaolo Bernardi <olopie...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Sidney Cadot <sid...@jigsaw.nl> wrote: > >> What I was wondering is whether the SQLite docs (written by you, I >> presume) express a preference for using SQLite3 via inclusion of the >> source (amalgamation) into ones project, vs. using a pre-compiled >> library (as could be provided, for example, by a linux distribution). > > Separate files vs. amalgamation, and statically vs. dynamic linking of > sqlite are two completely orthogonal issues. > > The manual section you quote refers only to the first of the two issue. > > With regard to the second issue, several experienced people, including > Richard Hipp, have expressed the opinion in more than one occasion > that statically linking sqlite avoids some problems that can happen > otherwise. > > Evaluating the pro and the contra of the two choices for each > particular project is a task that only the people involved in the > project can perform. > > Hope this helps. > P. > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
