| 1 |
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 17:58:08 -0400 |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> What kind of math would convince you that an idea with all "cons" and no |
| 5 |
> "pros" is bad? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Is "upstream tooling doesn't work without static compilation" or |
| 8 |
"built packages tend to need exact version matching at runtime to work" |
| 9 |
( which necessitates massive-scale multi-slotting, where every version |
| 10 |
of every packaged "thing" has a co-existing slot ) a problem for you? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Having the same problem as static-linking in terms of disk use ( all |
| 13 |
those different parallel versions ), but adding dependency hell to it |
| 14 |
, and adding compile time overhead (even if those assets were no-op |
| 15 |
virtuals, portage overhead is still pretty steep) isn't fun. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Not to mention reduced opportunities for whole-program optimization. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yes, In general I'm against static linking, and I really dislike this |
| 20 |
trend. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
But when upstreams ecosystem is built around it as a core concept, its |
| 23 |
really hard to buck that trend. |
Archives