Open Stack

On 05/20/2016 08:48 AM, Dean Troyer wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org 
> <mailto:zigo at debian.org>> wrote:
>
>     I am *NOT* buying that doing static linking is a progress. We're
>     back 30
>     years in the past, before the .so format. It is amazing that some
>     of us
>     think it's better. It simply isn't. It's a huge regression, for
>     package
>     maintainers, system admins, production/ops, and our final users. The
>     only group of people who like it are developers, because they just
>     don't
>     need to care about shared library API/ABI incompatibilities and
>     regressions anymore.
>
>
> I disagree, there are certainly places static linking is appropriate, 
> however, I didn't mention that at all. Much of the burden with Python 
> dependency at install/run time is due to NO linking.  Even with C, you 
> make choices at build time WRT what you link against, either 
> statically or dynamically.  Even with shared libs, when the interface 
> changes you have to re-link everything that uses that interface.  It 
> is not as black and white as you suggest.
>
> And I say that as a user, who so desperately wants an install process 
> for OSC to match PuTTY on Windows: 1) copy an .exe; 2) run it.
>
> dt
>
> [Thomas, I have done _EVERY_ one of the jobs above that you listed, as 
> a $DAY_JOB, and know exactly what it takes to run production-scale 
> services built from everything from vendor packages to house-built 
> source.  It would be nice if you refined your argument to stop leaning 
> on static linking as the biggest problem since stack overflows.  There 
> are other reasons this might be a bad idea, but I sense that you are 
> losing traction fixating on only this one.]

Static linking Bad.  We can debate why elsewhere.

Go with dynamic linking is possible, and should be what the 
distributions target. This is a solvable problem.

/me burns bikeshed and installs a Hubcycle/Citibike kiosk.


>
> -- 
>
> Dean Troyer
> dtroyer at gmail.com <mailto:dtroyer at gmail.com>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160520/b26b6f61/attachment.html>