[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
(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
An "it is because it is" argument.
Fact is that we don't support the distribution recommended way.
More information about the fpc-pascal