On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 03:48:49PM -0800, Qrux wrote: > > What is the case against the default? Presumably the developer had something > in mind when he chose one or the other as the default. Personally, I like > static libs, and while they tend to increase the size of executables, they > prevent dynlib version skew; having said that, I don't care enough to change > it from the default. > If you *really* don't know why some of us dislike static libs, I spelled it out just before Christmas at http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2011-December/041724.html
Beyond what I mentioned in that thread, there was at least one other package which used the static libhogweed and libnettle, where libnettle wasn't listed as a dependency because it was using either gnutls or glib-networking. So, if you know exactly which packages used which static libraries, you don't have a problem if you ever need to update one of those static libs because of a vulnerability, you only have to recompile the lib and its users. Most of us don't have that sort of detail, and for us it's far easier to just use the shared libs - we just recompile the lib and, if necessary, restart the application(s). ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
