On 5/14/07, Brice.Goglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
libnuma does not depend on the kernel interface as much as libc6 does, but libc6-dev does provide libc.a.
The only argument I really buy is that static libraries can be faster, and libc could conceivably be on the critical-path of an application ... I don't see what part of libnuma could be on the critical-path (and if it is, the extra jump will be nothing compared to the overheads of allocating/migrating/pinning memory, etc). IMO you're doing yourself a dis-service by not using it as a shared library; you can can't get the advantages of code sharing, you can easily miss bug fix updates, you open yourself to bugs from version skew, etc.
If we send a patch, would you apply it?
I want the package to be useful, and if not having a static library is making your life difficult I guess I don't have a choice but to provide it. But for *this* library, I just don't get why having it static helps anyone. -i -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
