Re: [MiNT] rpm

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

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 11:49:21 , Jo Even Skarstein <joska@online.no> wrote:
>
> On fr., 2014-12-19 at 22:38 +0100, Henk Robbers wrote:
>
> > Static linking might not be as inefficient as most people think.
> > Besides that its concept is rather uncomplicated and a lot more
> > safe than dynamic linking with suspicious libraries
> > each time a program is run.
>
> I tend to agree with Henk. Dynamic linking has advantages, but as a
> concept it's not really suited for a system without virtual memory.
> Also, it complicates stuff a lot.
>
> Jo Even
>
>
>

For proper shared linked libs I agree but that is not what I was suggesting.

I was only suggesting a way of linking libs *without* sharing them so that
VM is not needed.

The approach is only intended to adress the problem of updated libs
that then require lots of other libs/apps to be updated. This is the
obstacle for most people.

I don't care about saving a few kb of ram.

A beneficial side-effect might be that it would improve build times on
native (slow) hardware because it it not having to compile and link lots
of static libs.

Peter