Re: *DO* dynamically link distributed executables
Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org:
>>>>> "Rick" == Rick Campbell
<rick(a)campbellcentral.org> writes:
Rick> For a variety of reasons, at least
on some platforms -- Linux in
Rick> particular -- it's come down to there being a real need for seperate
Rick> static and non-static builds. My suspicion is that that need will
Rick> still be around for a while.
Maybe Linux didn't do as good a job on the backward
compatibility
mechanism for shared libraries as Solaris did?
Not particularly. There has been roughly one incompatible libc upgrade
per year and a half since I've been using it. The braindamaged way
-rpath is implemented (and/or used) is the major problem I've had.
Every binary that *does not* link with -rpath handles upgrades. Every
binary that uses it breaks on an upgrade.
Some idiot has just broken libtool so that using it will force -rpath
into link command lines and that's going to cause a whole new round of
breakage for the transition glibc-2.0 -> glibc-2.1.