On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 03:27:54PM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 08:46:33PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Which brings yet another argument in favour of not disallowing
> statically builds: ISVs love to use these in order to have one build
> for the whole Linux world. Not that these builds are ever a joy to the
> users, and some may say the noone cares about proprietary browser
> plugins or java vms, but I would be sad to not have a Linux way to
> partition HP storage for example.
In this case please reread this thread, that's exactly what we'd like
ISVs to avoid and all the reasons stated in the thread why static
linking is not desirable for that purpose apply to the vast majority
of ISV uses of static linking.
But you will not force ISV to suddenly invest more support into
this. They will just drop Fedora as a build platform and still offer
static builds, now with even more issues as they will most certainly
be using another distro for creating them. At the end it will mean
that "HP storage solutions work under Windows 2008 (TM), Novell Linux
12, but not RHEL6 or FC8".
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net