Re: [MiNT] Software packaging (was: opkg / coldmint)

[Peter Slegg <p.slegg@scubadivers.co.uk>]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:37:43 , Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are several points in having shared libraries.  Memory and disk
> space saving (in most cases) are one reason, but IMHO most important one
> is security / reliability fixes.  With statically linked binaries it's
> hard to know even whether some known security vulnerabilities (since 90s
> when your binaries were last re-built) apply to your programs or not.
> Because with static linking, it's *much* harder to know against which
> buggy & vulnerable libraries & their versions your binaries were built
> with.
>

Mark was suggesting taking the step to VM with dynamic libs but has anyone
considered an iterim solution of each program dynamically loading its own
copy of libs that are not shared in memory ?

This would have many of the advantages mentioned above apart from saving
memory space. I believe it was a solution that Apple used on 680x0

I can't see many instances of situations were users would be running several
apps that need the same lib so the memory used would not be important.

Peter