Re: [9fans] Announce: standalone libixp
On 7/1/07, Enrico Weigelt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:[color=blue]
> * Kris Maglione <email@example.com> wrote:[color=green]
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:30:41PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:[color=darkred]
> > >Don't you want people the freedom to choose what they like best ?[/color]
> > There is no choice involved. If you install a shared library,
> > it will be used by default on most systems.[/color]
> This realy depends on how the application is built.
> > >There are valid reasons for using shared libraries, ie. not the
> > >need to rebuild applications on library update or saving resources.[/color]
> > Saving resources is not relevant here.[/color]
> For me it really *IS* relevant. I'm working in embedded environments
> with very limited resources.
> > libixp is so small that the resources required to dynamically link
> > it are greater than those required to statically link it.[/color]
> Well, if it would be just a few pages, you maybe could be true.
> But (at least at my site) the .a is about 100k and the the .so
> about 90k large.
not to troll on you, enrico,
but this thread remembered me of one on the openbsd-tech list.
the situation was: someone proposed a -l option to openbsds ifconfig
just to list network interface names. ifconfig already shows the names
and much more info so the -l behaviour can obsviously be achieved with
shell scripting. at some point in the discussion someone said about -l
being a good point for embedded since it lets you cut off sed, awk and
that sort of utility with the same space argument.
this is what i answered [url]http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=115103143012683&w=2[/url]