Sender: nate AT cartsys DOT com Message-ID: <37642B63.71F64C68@cartsys.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:06:27 -0700 From: Nate Eldredge X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Hello World and File size References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Christopher Nelson wrote: > > Okay, Now imagine that you've got tons and tons of DJGPP programs, each one > > with it's own copy of the same stuff linked into it. Imagine how many megs > > would be free if they didn't? > > I'm arguing that the disk space saved by this is much less important > than the mess we will have on our hands due to proliferation of subtly > incompatible versions of the standard libraries. I disagree. Judging from the model of Linux, I don't think that the scenario you've been suggesting (that developers would react to standard library bugs by distributing new DLLs, ref Message-ID of June 9) is likely. A more reasonable way of handling this (and, in my experience, one often used) is to report the bug to the maintainers (perhaps a bugfixed version will be released quickly), include a source patch with the application, and perhaps distribute a statically linked binary. After all, just because DLLs are provided needn't mean one is required to use them. Statically linked binaries can remain a perfectly reasonable format. I have only seen Linux packages distributed with independent libraries for convenience, to save the user the trouble of finding, compiling and installing it. Nearly always, they are advised to do just that when possible to take advantage of newer library versions. This, in fact, is an advantage of dynamic linking: a library bug can be corrected in installed applications without recompiling them. IMHO, in an environment where sources, compilers, and choice of link method are freely available, there are no philosophical reasons to avoid dynamic linking. This doesn't mean I'm suggesting that DJGPP switch to DLLs now; I think the implementation issues make it impractical and remove several of its other advantages. But I don't think we should decide against this approach in advance. -- Nate Eldredge nate AT cartsys DOT com