On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:21:09PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm(a)ATrpms.net> said:
> FWIW again from the number crunching community, sometimes statically
> linking numerical libs shows performance gains (although when the
> problem domain is of that kind the libs tend to be headers-only with
> inlining), and some only commercial available libs only offer static
> libs.
Not all the number crunching community statically links. For example,
my father works for NASA, and for his project, they rebuild from source
everywhere. This is a requirement since they run the project on a
number of platforms (Linux, Solaris, Windows/Cygwin, Tru64, IRIX).
You faile dot mention whether your father builds his apps statically
or dynamically. Any either way, this distribution model is indeed
Gentoo-like as someone else mentioned in this thread.
> 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.
Unless these vendors include object code suitable for re-linking against
a different glibc, they are violating the LGPL if they link against
glibc.
Are you sure? glibc is not GPL, it's LGPL. and how would a vendor in
2006 be able to ensure that his binaries can relinked with glibc from
2010?
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net