In September 2011, I wrote:
Do we still have a reason for telling people to stick with static linkage when building fltk?
I was thinking about what our installation instructions should look like these days, and how everyone has a decent chance of having a fltk-1.3 package available and it may not be best to tell them to run off and compile fltk unless fltk-config --version doesn't tell them any good news and they can't get a pkg... and this led me to wonder about the necessity/appropriateness of static linking. All that I found in the archive was me wondering about it last year and no one replying to me. Well, except this now. I'm replying to me, if that counts.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 06:07:54PM +0000, corvid wrote:
In September 2011, I wrote:
Do we still have a reason for telling people to stick with static linkage when building fltk?
I was thinking about what our installation instructions should look like these days, and how everyone has a decent chance of having a fltk-1.3 package available and it may not be best to tell them to run off and compile fltk unless fltk-config --version doesn't tell them any good news and they can't get a pkg... and this led me to wonder about the necessity/appropriateness of static linking.
All that I found in the archive was me wondering about it last year and no one replying to me. Well, except this now. I'm replying to me, if that counts.
I would leave the decision to link statically or not to the package maintainers of the various distros. They will do anyway what they consider best.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 06:07:54PM +0000, corvid wrote:
In September 2011, I wrote:
Do we still have a reason for telling people to stick with static linkage when building fltk?
I was thinking about what our installation instructions should look like these days, and how everyone has a decent chance of having a fltk-1.3 package available and it may not be best to tell them to run off and compile fltk unless fltk-config --version doesn't tell them any good news and they can't get a pkg... and this led me to wonder about the necessity/appropriateness of static linking.
All that I found in the archive was me wondering about it last year and no one replying to me. Well, except this now. I'm replying to me, if that counts.
FWIW, I build in a Debian system now and: $ ldd dillo [...] libpng12.so.0 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpng12.so.0 (0x00007f2c3e312000) libfltk.so.1.3 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libfltk.so.1.3 (0x00007f2c3dfd0000) [...] I thought this meant it was linked with a shared version of FLTK. What am I missing? -- Cheers Jorge.-
Jorge wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 06:07:54PM +0000, corvid wrote:
In September 2011, I wrote:
Do we still have a reason for telling people to stick with static linkage when building fltk?
I was thinking about what our installation instructions should look like these days, and how everyone has a decent chance of having a fltk-1.3 package available and it may not be best to tell them to run off and compile fltk unless fltk-config --version doesn't tell them any good news and they can't get a pkg... and this led me to wonder about the necessity/appropriateness of static linking.
All that I found in the archive was me wondering about it last year and no one replying to me. Well, except this now. I'm replying to me, if that counts.
FWIW, I build in a Debian system now and:
$ ldd dillo [...] libpng12.so.0 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpng12.so.0 (0x00007f2c3e312000) libfltk.so.1.3 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libfltk.so.1.3 (0x00007f2c3dfd0000) [...]
I thought this meant it was linked with a shared version of FLTK. What am I missing?
*digs through fltk for a minute* So it's a matter of whether fltk is configured with --enable-shared, then? The main page of the website still says "statically-linked by default!", and all along I've had the impression that it had to do with the form of how we link in the Makefile. I guess it makes sense to rm that mention from the website, then. I could've sworn that it was in our documentation somewhere, too, but I don't see it anywhere at the moment. PS I think we will be able to get rid of the warning about --enable-cairo , since it doesn't seem to do anything bad with fltk-1.3.
participants (3)
-
corvid＠lavabit.com -
jcid＠dillo.org -
Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de