[fpc-pascal] Re: linux: should we hard-code versioned or unversioned shared libraries in our apps?

Marco van de Voort marcov at stack.nl
Thu Aug 16 05:39:48 CEST 2012

In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> > Blend perfectly with the distro they are build for, but if changes occur
> > chances on recovery are slim.
> Be more specific, what changes?

Change in naming, (either root (gds->fbclient) or version numbers) non
standard directories (the $prefix/lib/mysql/ has been a problem in the

And always, always, we work with 6 months to an year latency. If we were
finalizing 2.6.2 now, and a distro had already changed in some devel
version, it will probably not make 2.6.2.

With a low FPC release frequency and distro packages that generally not fix
this on their own, this is a lost battle.

And despite all assurances that this change is all pretty invariant, this
discussion returns in some way or the other every 6-9 months as new
developments occur. 

(or, like in thise case, if somebody wants to be smart and turns the screws
on status quo a bit tighter).

If dynamic linking is so great, why do we constant, constantly have these
discussions and worse all these illadvised changes? 

IMHO dynamic linking is a boon for a few people that want attempt
crossdistro distribution, and a burden on everything else.
> Dynamic linking and Static linking both have there pros and cons. Most
> seem to prefer dynamic linking, that is why it is the default in
> ibconnection.pp.

An "it is because it is" argument.

Fact is that we don't support the distribution recommended way.

More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list