No.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:32 PM Neal Richardson
<neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just to be clear: this is not part of the 0.15 release discussion, right?
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:29 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:14 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 12/09/2019 à 20:14, Wes McKinney a écrit :
> > > > hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > I wanted to share some concerns that I have about our current
> > > > trajectory with regards to producing shared libraries from the Arrow
> > > > build system.
> > > >
> > > > Currently, a comprehensive build produces many shared libraries:
> > > >
> > > > * libarrow
> > > > * libarrow_dataset
> > > > * libarrow_flight
> > > > * libarrow_python
> > > > * libgandiva
> > > > * libparquet
> > > > * libplasma
> > >
> > > Each library pulls its own set of non-trivial third-party dependencies.
> > >  For example, libarrow_flight includes gRPC, libcurl and OpenSSL as far
> > > as I remember.
> > >
> > > Worse, libarrow_cuda depends on the NVidia CUDA libraries.  That's a
> > > *huge* dependency (and may also have runtime costs in addition to
> > > installation / deployment annoyances).
> > >
> > > Some packagers may also want to distribute some sublibraries separately
> > > (Linux distros especially tend to like having many small, focussed
> > > shared libraries that they can distribute as separate, dependent
> > > packages) - but that's not my business and I'll let them speak up ;-)
> > >
> >
> > It's a fair point. Another possibility is to be more Boost-like in the
> > approach to the library structure. But there are costs involved with
> > this, e.g. each Boost component that produces a shared library carries
> > its own visiblity baggage
> >
> > https://github.com/boostorg/filesystem/blob/e268f557df657079be5ba4c19ab0d41ce66b6fb3/include/boost/filesystem/config.hpp
> >
> > My general point stands in any case, that we've encountered some
> > rottenness w.r.t. cross-DLL symbol management and we need to confront
> > the issues and decide how to deal with them.
> >
> > > So without deeper analysis I'm a bit worried about this proposal.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Antoine.

Reply via email to