[opensuse] Why was libbz2.a removed?
Hi all. I never dared to ask: Why was libbz2.a removed? Was this done for performance reasons? Greetings Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 03:49:37PM +0100, hartrumpf@gmx.net wrote:
Hi all.
I never dared to ask:
Why was libbz2.a removed?
Was this done for performance reasons?
Basically to reduce size and also to allow easier updates of libbz2 if it ever has a security issue. Is there any particular reason you need the static lib? Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hi Marcus. Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:24:30 +0100, meissner wrote:
Why was libbz2.a removed? Basically to reduce size and also to allow easier updates of libbz2 if it ever has a security issue.
Is there any particular reason you need the static lib?
Just for convenience if one wants to link a static binary. (Or is there a simple linker option trick like "link all static, except for bz2"?) Most libraries come in both versions, so one stumbles across cases like libbz2. Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 15/11/09 12:31, hartrumpf@gmx.net wrote:
Just for convenience if one wants to link a static binary. (Or is there a simple linker option trick like "link all static, except for bz2"?)
Yes, Wl,-static <all static libs here> -Wl,-Bdynamic -lbz2 .... But you dont really want that anyway... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:31:28 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
Just for convenience if one wants to link a static binary.
Then you're in for trouble as we try to remove static libraries where we can. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:31:28 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
Just for convenience if one wants to link a static binary.
Then you're in for trouble as we try to remove static libraries where we can.
Philipp
That's nice and all for most users. But, so is Windows, and McDonalds, etc... (ie: "most users" is not any sort of valid argument) There should be a relatively simple way to have them if you want them, just as there is for source, headers/includes, debugging, and profiling versions of things, all of which are exactly the same sort of things ordinary users do not need or want. They aren't simply gon, or only available by starting from source, they are in optional add-on packages that can be easily selected for install by anyone that wants them. It's no ones place to tell anyone else "You don't need static libraries." -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:30:03 -0500, you wrote:
Philipp Thomas wrote:
It's no ones place to tell anyone else "You don't need static libraries."
On a modern system with glibc2 there are only a very few classes of programs that can be linked fully statically, namely those that do not need any name resolution function like gethostbyname. This is because the name service switch in glibc *requires* that the libraries implementing these function in regard to different services (i.e. the libnss* libraries) be loaded dynamically. So these are loaded dynamically even when glibc itself is linked in statically. These binaries then depend on dynamic libraries with an ABI matching that of the the linked in glibc. If the ABI for the libnss* changes, chances are good that the application will blow up as happened in the past with rpm. Plus using static versions makes handling security bugs a lot harder as you don't have to fix one dynamic library but each and every application that uses a static version of the library in question as had to be done in the past for libraries like libz. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 16/11/09 17:30, Brian K. White wrote:
It's no ones place to tell anyone else "You don't need static libraries."
Let's rephrase it as: You need shared libraries for any non-trivial program anyway, so the whole argument of static linking for "convenience" goes down the hill. I did the vast mayority of this static library cleanup and only found a few valid use cases, and looots of bugs..however Im open to hear about other valid uses that are not sustained by this silly "convenience" argument. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 16/11/09 17:30, Brian K. White wrote:
It's no ones place to tell anyone else "You don't need static libraries."
Let's rephrase it as:
You need shared libraries for any non-trivial program anyway, so the whole argument of static linking for "convenience" goes down the hill.
I did the vast mayority of this static library cleanup and only found a few valid use cases, and looots of bugs..however Im open to hear about other valid uses that are not sustained by this silly "convenience" argument.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I said nothing about convenience or any other possible reasons why one might want a static library. What I said was just what I meant to say. Your attempted rephrasing did not rephrase the concept I wanted to impart, it expressed an entirely different concept. One which is invalid to this discussion in my opinion. There is a reason why I said it just that way. It's wrong to try to think of reasons to use a static library, fail to think of any, and based on that conclude that no one else has any valid reason. I said the inverse because that's what I meant. It's no ones place to say to anyone else "You don't need that." unilaterally. It can be said in specific individual cases IF you know everything about what the users needs or wants are, and IF it's actually true in that case. It is agreed that the uses are getting less common every day. It is agreed that at least some uses that are still occurring today probably should or could be changed to no longer use them. I do not agree that this constitutes a good enough reason to just remove such a standard, however legacy, part of a system. By remove, I mean no simple and efficient way to opt back in, such as we have with the devel, debug & profiling packages and src.rpms. If there were -static packages and a yast/zypper pattern that installed them all or related groups of them, that would be fine. Unless it's simply true that opensuse is simply focusing more of it's attention and resources on desktop users. In that context it's a fine decision. A desktop is by definition a special case installation that doesn't need most of what exists in the world of linux. It's inconvenient for those of us who do not use opensuse for a desktop but for servers or as development platforms, but, if the shift in direction is true, then the problem is not that the distribution removed something that should be there for those that want it. It's that this class of users are no longer using the best platform for their work. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 20/11/09 16:36, Brian K. White wrote:
If there were -static packages and a yast/zypper pattern that installed them all or related groups of them, that would be fine.
-static packages do exist, when a particular static library was determined to be worth keeping AND more importantly, track when it is used for building packages.
Unless it's simply true that opensuse is simply focusing more of it's attention and resources on desktop users.
No, This particular move is to: * save man power in the long term **hint, hint** * Provide a more maintainable product, previous, there was no realistic way to figure what applications were using static linking, there be the dragons.. * save space and bandwidth (a few GB actually) Cheers. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (5)
-
Brian K. White
-
Cristian Rodríguez
-
hartrumpf@gmx.net
-
Marcus Meissner
-
Philipp Thomas