On Sun, 02 Oct 2011, Florian Weimer wrote: > Couldn't we get rid of static libraries altogether, replacing static > linking with ahead-of-time dynamic linking?
Well, the normal usecase for static libraries and static linking is to produce self-contained objects. If you can link a bunch of dynamic objects into a self-contained object that behaves as a static-linked object would, I'd say that yes, we could probably do away with static libraries. I do think it is a bad idea, though. We don't provide libraries just for ourselves, we also provide them for the user to use when building his own stuff and they might have other usecases. Doing away with static libraries does not look like a service to our users at first glance[1]. Fixing [upstream] any braindead crap that gets in the way of proper static linking, OTOH, is useful to everybody... [1] but I don't feel strong enough about it to get in the way if we do decide to drop static libs. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111002220848.ge16...@khazad-dum.debian.net