On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]>wrote:
> On quinta-feira, 1 de agosto de 2013 17:57:03, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Hausmann Simon > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > What is the advantage of this approach over static linkage? > > > > 1) Not linking into more applications running. > > > > 2) It is also safer for the LGPLv2 license without an exception for > static > > linking into commercial code. > > > > 3) shared library is more widely used so it is more natural for me. > > Advantages 1 and 3 make no difference because you'll be building it on your > own. There will be no sharing of code at runtime. In fact, deploying a > shared > library may also make packaging your application more (not less) difficult. > Err... 1) does not make a difference on embedded with a small NOR/NAND flash? Perhaps, you are thinking about desktop? As far as I can tell, it is such a big difference that we would need reject Qt if we only had the static linking option. I still feel a lot more comfortable with 3) than without. So, yes, 3) is not necessarily a blocker, just a nice convenience, but 1)-2) are blockers against using Qt in that way.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
