• Alex
      link
      fedilink
      11
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This seems really cool!

      But dynamic linking saves space AFAIK

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        151 year ago

        It also makes updating easier. When a lib has a bug it can be fixed by updating one package. If every application on your system was statically linked, each one of these would have to be updated individually.

        • Alex
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          But then you definitely wouldn’t have errors with different apps requiring different versions of the same library.

          • @woelkchen
            link
            141 year ago

            But then you definitely wouldn’t have errors with different apps requiring different versions of the same library.

            That’s why libfoo.so.1.2.3, libfoo.so.1.2.4, libfoo.so.1.3.9, etc. exist. Flatpak also exists. Just link to a specific version of a freedesktop.org Runtime.

      • @woelkchen
        link
        31 year ago

        But dynamic linking saves space AFAIK

        Yes, it does and while I’m not a pedant about saving every possible byte in a time of terabyte SSDs, static linking everything is just insanely wasteful.

    • @woelkchen
      link
      81 year ago

      Why would you want dynamic linking?

      Because static linking everything sucks.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      Neat, I wish some of these projects weren’t so apt to prime themselves for corporate takeover and instead stuck more with copy left.

      Though I think I prefer the guix set up of keeping a unique package based on checksum and linking those out as required.