There may also be cases where, from a security perspective, it may be preferable to statically link an executable so that there are fewer potential points of compromise. Things like forensic tools, where you might be examining a system and you are not sure what may have been compromised.
Doesn't mean that every library requires a static version, but there might be a requirement for a carefully picked few to be mandated. Cheers, Berin > > From: Anthony Towns <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Question regarding policy (11.2) > Date: 07/02/2003 14:42:06 > To: [email protected] > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:56:48PM +0000, James Troup wrote: > > Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > However disks are cheap enough that it seems reasonable to ask > > > people doing development to go buy a big disk. > > It's not about disks so much as bandwidth. Disk may be cheap, but > > bandwidth isn't, at lesast not universally. I've also no idea who > > would want or need static libraries in this day and age, but maybe I'm > > missing something obvious. > > LSB compliant programs have to either be statically linked, or distributed > with the dynamic versions, of all the libraries they use, bar a few. Having > the .a's available for that may be useful. > > Cheers, > aj > > -- > Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> > I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. > > ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- > you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
