| 1 |
On Tuesday 06 March 2007, Michael Cummings wrote: |
| 2 |
> Can someone point me to the documentation regarding "If it's possible to |
| 3 |
> create either a dynamic or static library, you should create both." |
| 4 |
> (paraphrase of something vapier said at one point many moons ago, but I'm |
| 5 |
> not trying to hold mike against that). I ask because I sense a new release |
| 6 |
> of perl looming in the near future, and everytime one of the questions |
| 7 |
> we're asked is why we build both a static and a dynamic library for perl |
| 8 |
> (and to be honest, since perl isn't one of those apps you need running in |
| 9 |
> an emergency single user boot - that i'm aware of anyway - I never have a |
| 10 |
> good reference). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
i dont think this has really been documented properly, but the logic behind it |
| 13 |
is pretty simple ... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
not providing static libraries and only providing dynamic libraries prevents |
| 16 |
people from compiling their own static applications on the fly |
| 17 |
-mike |
Archives