ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Ted Gould <ted@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 19:51 -0600, Matthew Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ted Gould <ted@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>         On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 17:37 -0400, Scott Sweeny wrote: 
>         
>         > One thing click could do is look (at build time) at what external libraries an
>         > application makes use of and if those libraries aren't included in the system
>         > image include them in the click package itself, then at runtime ensure that
>         > those libraries are properly linked into the application.
>         > 
>         > Is this something we'd like to pursue?
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         Why wouldn't you just statically link them?  Seems like
>         roughly the same for most applications that have a single
>         binary.
>         
> 
> In this specific instance we ended up in a black hole of static
> linking, I had about 4-5 libs specified before I found some for which
> we don't ship static stuff. Neither Scott nor I could figure out how
> to make Qt allow us to statically link some thing and dynamically link
> others. That would have also solved this specific issue. Is that
> possible?

Well, I can't promise no black holes, that would violate the laws of
physics ;-)

You can do any amount of static vs. dynamic linking when building,
that's really just how you pass the command line to the linker.  I think
that the overarching issue is that in Deban/Ubuntu for the last few
years we've been removing the static libraries as it was considered a
waste of space, and mostly something that only caused accidents.  We
might want to revisit that policy at this UDS and discuss the
trade-offs.  They have changed dramatically with Click packaging being
BYOD today.

Ted

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part