Open Stack

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Thomas Goirand <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.]

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtroyer at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160520/c8d8c4ce/attachment.html>