*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Although it is not a practical proposition to produce a statically
linked Coot, I think that all programs that can be statically linked
should also be distributed in such a form. For the record, all the SHELX
programs are supplied as statically linked executables for Linux, as is
the program XPREP which does have some graphics capabilities.
George
Harry Powell wrote:
*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Hi
Unfortunately, recent gcc/g77/gfortran installations (on Linux and Mac
OSX, in particular; as far as I can recall, SGI compilers on Irix have
done this for a long time) force the use of dynamic libraries (I suspect
this is the same for g++) - I notice that even when I try to tie
everything down on a Mosflm build to statically link, there are still some
dynamic links forced on me (even though the linker doesn't actually tell
me it's doing this!).
Unless someone can tell me what other flags I have to link with as well as
(or instead of) "-static -static-libgcc".
grrrr....
On a different topics, is there really a reason for not using static
libraries? Dynamic libraries are a constant pain, both to users and
maintainers, because there are always different versions on different
machines (and of course we don't have all our machines on the same OS
version, like I imagine most people). Also the obscure error messages
"can't find right version of libthingy-99.9.dylib" or whatever is deeply
confusing to nearly all of us.
I love stand-alone binaries with no external dependencies
Phil
I can only agree to this! And who cares nowadays about the additional
disk space that statically compiled binaries require?
Dirk.
On 11 Jan 2007, at 00:39, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
William Scott wrote:
Or you could just build ccp4-onlylibs-dev, use the include/ccp4.setup-x
file in THAT, and source it before building coot. If you build
ccp4-onlylibs-dev with only static libs, then you can even get rid
of the
ccp4-onlylibs-dev installation afterwards.
That is the way I have been doing it.
Thanks for the suggestion -- it does provide an escape route. Being
forced to use static libraries is really a hack, though. It also
violates our packaging policy because it makes security updates very
difficult. People are still finding static and bundled copies of
vulnerable zlib from a year ago and more. It also means everyone's going
to be building essentially the same libraries twice for no good reason.
Harry
--
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry,
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goettingen, Germany
Tel. +49-551-39-3021 or -3068
Fax. +49-551-39-2582
