Le lundi 28 mai 2007 à 17:24 +0200, Patrice Dumas a écrit :
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 05:12:55PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Replace one can not with it's too much hassle to and you'll see where I
> was going. Reduce the hassle factor doing things right and suddenly
> static libs will get less attractive.
Ok. What will be replacing them?
Help create properly autotooled rpm transparently for people that don't
care about infrastructure stuff. You already have cluster managers that
use rpm as a payload. That takes care of the deployment, of the
interfering stuff in /usr/local, etc
In any case I doubt it may be as simple as what we have with static
libs, with statically linked executables created by adding -static to
the link command line...
You focus too much on the current technical solution and not enough on
user needs. The problem is not to replicate the same old & broken
solution ad vitam eternam but to make the correct technical solution
attractive enough for users to switch.
I won't share nuggets of ass-backwards common wisdom here, that would
strike to close to my employer systems, but sometimes you need to
re-asses why a particular solution was chosen at a time and if you can
not achieve the original goals better now with stuff that was not
available a decade ago.