Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 02:59:57PM -0500, James Carlson wrote: > >> We had this discussion back with PSARC 2002/117 and the elimination of >> static libraries from Solaris. >> >> I don't believe we should bring them back. Dynamic libraries >> (including libc itself) are a part of the system, no more or less >> significant than genunix itself. The removal or destruction of them >> is no more or less "risky" than damaging any of a hundred other parts >> of the system that are crucial for normal operation. >> >> No more static libraries. It's not just a Big Rule; it's a good idea. >> > > Actually, I agree. SMF and SQLite2 are special in a particular way > though. We don't have automated testing of SQLite2 in ONNV, and I'm not > sure that the original tests are good enough (it's been a long time > since I looked; the SQLite3 tests, OTOH, are fantastic), so any change > to SQLite2 should necessitate running full SMF tests. We probably > should have integrated SQLite3 and not bothered with SQLite2 when we > needed a DB for idmapd and smbd, but we did use SQLite2. OTOH, we'll > never, ever change SQLite2 -- it's dead, and any project that ever needs > to change it should be using SQLite3. > So basically what I'm reading in this is when I refactor the build system I may as well evaluate updating to SQLite3. One of the first comments seemed to imply that with SQLite3 there would be an increase in binary size or some other disadvantage.
Thanks guys..
