Missing static libraries in some packages

Mvxa · 2010-11-07 21:21:18

Hello,

I would like to link a program statically but some libraries aren't shipped with their static version in their packages.

These are:

Glib 2
Cryptsetup
device-mapper

Other libraries I am using are already shiped with their static version. So I would like to request a consistent distribution of the static libraries here. Thanks.

Allan · 2010-11-07 21:58:04

Static linking with glibc is crap...

GogglesGuy · 2010-11-08 01:27:00

Allan wrote:

Static linking with glibc is crap...

glib2!=glibc

Allan · 2010-11-08 01:32:33

No shit... my point stands.

Mvxa · 2010-11-08 17:01:00

Allan wrote:

No shit... my point stands.

... with no support . Could you explain why you think that static linking is crap?

It is for my personal use only and I would like to link my program statically.

ngoonee · 2010-11-08 18:35:44

Mvxa wrote:

Allan wrote:
No shit... my point stands.
... with no support . Could you explain why you think that static linking is crap?
It is for my personal use only and I would like to link my program statically.

I'll leave the technical details to Allan, but when you say 'personal use' that just means you should use abs to recompile the packages you need. No reason to ask that the packages everybody else uses be done that way.

Mvxa · 2010-11-08 21:59:44

ngoonee wrote:

I'll leave the technical details to Allan

I think I am quiet aware of the technical details implied by static linkage of binaries .

ngoonee wrote:

but when you say 'personal use' that just means you should use abs to recompile the packages you need.

This is what I already did, though I would need to recompile the packages each time they get updated on my own again, if I would like to use them in a program again (recompiling in example).

ngoonee wrote:

No reason to ask that the packages everybody else uses be done that way.

I am just asking for a consistent behavior here. If you think that static libraries are rubbish and you are in the position of being able to demand other package maintainers to drop the static linkage of libraries, then do it. Anyway is fine for me. It was moreover a suggestion.

Allan · 2010-11-08 22:42:28

Mvxa wrote:

Could you explain why you think that static linking is crap?

I said static linking with glibc sucks... It does not work for most cases in the vanilla upstream source (I have patched our toolchain so it works somewhat). Also, depending on the functions used, it can require the exact shared library from the time when static linking was done to still be on the system.

Edit: Also, generally static linking is crap as you always have to rebuild if a security fix is released in a library.

ngoonee · 2010-11-08 23:57:19

Mvxa wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
but when you say 'personal use' that just means you should use abs to recompile the packages you need.
This is what I already did, though I would need to recompile the packages each time they get updated on my own again, if I would like to use them in a program again (recompiling in example).

Check out bauerbill, it'll simplify the process for you, allows you to optionally compile from abs certain packages everytime they update. You could then just change your flags, or optionally supply patches per package.

Mvxa wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
No reason to ask that the packages everybody else uses be done that way.
I am just asking for a consistent behavior here. If you think that static libraries are rubbish and you are in the position of being able to demand other package maintainers to drop the static linkage of libraries, then do it. Anyway is fine for me. It was moreover a suggestion.

Suggestions go to the bug tracker, there's no real reason for devs to check the forums looking for user suggestions. Allan is an exception rather than the norm.

anatolik · 2013-05-16 23:40:42

I had the same question as topic starter https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/35257 . Why Arch does not ship static libraries? I think compile statically vs dynamically should be decided by user, not distro.

It is especially sad as there there is a lot of people who are dogmatically against dynamic linking https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgr … fNF_psm4kJ

Arch Linux

#1 2010-11-07 21:21:18

Missing static libraries in some packages

#2 2010-11-07 21:58:04

Re: Missing static libraries in some packages

#3 2010-11-08 01:27:00

Re: Missing static libraries in some packages

#4 2010-11-08 01:32:33

Re: Missing static libraries in some packages

#5 2010-11-08 17:01:00

Re: Missing static libraries in some packages

#6 2010-11-08 18:35:44

Re: Missing static libraries in some packages

#7 2010-11-08 21:59:44

Re: Missing static libraries in some packages

#8 2010-11-08 22:42:28

Re: Missing static libraries in some packages

#9 2010-11-08 23:57:19

Re: Missing static libraries in some packages

#10 2013-05-16 23:40:42

Re: Missing static libraries in some packages

Board footer