If I, as a application developer, am going to require a specific version
of a shared library, to where a point-increment on the library will break
my program, then I might as well use the static version of the library.
Sounds reasonable. The developer may even want to package the fragile
dependencies with their source as well.
I think there was a thread on that here recently.
That developers should release the source for everything they use with
their app so ppl don't have to go chasing everything they used, right
down to the point-release verson of the code.
Makes Xen/chroot() environments a much more interesting/likely
opportunity, coz you'd hate to have to be building/maintaing 2 different
pieces of software that "required" to different versions of the same
library to be installed (which our developers ran into until I said
"enuff of this shit !")
--
Michael O'Keefe | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Live on and Ride a 03 BMW F650GSDakar| [EMAIL PROTECTED] / |
I like less more or less less than |Work:+1 858 845 3514 / |
more. UNIX-live it,love it,fork() it |Fax :+1 858 845 2652 /_p_|
My views are MINE ALONE, blah, blah, |Home:+1 760 788 1296 \`O'|
blah, yackety yack - don't come back |Fax :+1 858 _/_\|_,
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
