Joachim Breitner <[email protected]> writes: > yes, there has been discussion, and as far I as know, the reasons in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-haskell/2010/03/msg00122.html > still apply. Plus, I think, it is not supported on all architectures.
Thanks for pointing out the older discussion. My personal interest in using dynamic libraries stems from the desire to to run multiple applications with a greater amount of code shared, making hosting those applications on a memory constrained shared virtual host more feasible. And, of course, there are all the other reasons that usually recommend shared libraries---getting security fixes without requiring recompiles, etc. That said, it does sound like there are a lot of technical issues. I wonder if some of the infrastructure that the C++ developers have used to try to handle ABI changes could be helpful? Regardless, I don't necessarily expect anyone to do this _for_ me, but I hope that if I could come up with some specific suggestions for how to deal with this that it would be at least considered? Mike. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
