* Michael Stapelberg: > Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> writes: >> My main worry is that, for example, a fix in another, otherwise >> unrelated dependency prompts a rebuild, and this picks up behavioral >> changes which haven't been visible before, but lingering in the static >> library. Essentially, we end up with non-reproducible builds.
> Could you provide an example please? I don’t understand how this is > different with static linking than with dynamic linking yet. With dynamic linking, you pick up the behavior change along with "apt-get upgrade", so I expect that we get much more testing of the combination during development. Technically, you are correct that we generally do not do purely static linking—preprocessor macros can change, and so can the value of enum constants. And with C++, there are many, many more language features which escape dynamic linking. But I think the lingering change phenomenon is still a valid concern with static linking. (One approach which doesn't seem to have been discussed so far is compile-on-installation, à la common-lisp-controller. Not sure if this is a good idea. Linking-on-installation does not appear to be sufficient.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/874niyze8w....@mid.deneb.enyo.de
