It also makes updating easier. When a lib has a bug it can be fixed by updating one package. If every application on your system was statically linked, each one of these would have to be updated individually.
But then you definitely wouldn’t have errors with different apps requiring different versions of the same library.
That’s why libfoo.so.1.2.3, libfoo.so.1.2.4, libfoo.so.1.3.9, etc. exist. Flatpak also exists. Just link to a specific version of a freedesktop.org Runtime.
Yes, it does and while I’m not a pedant about saving every possible byte in a time of terabyte SSDs, static linking everything is just insanely wasteful.
https://github.com/oasislinux/oasis
Why would you want dynamic linking? Afraid you will change your mind?
This seems really cool!
But dynamic linking saves space AFAIK
It also makes updating easier. When a lib has a bug it can be fixed by updating one package. If every application on your system was statically linked, each one of these would have to be updated individually.
But then you definitely wouldn’t have errors with different apps requiring different versions of the same library.
That’s why
libfoo.so.1.2.3,libfoo.so.1.2.4,libfoo.so.1.3.9, etc. exist. Flatpak also exists. Just link to a specific version of a freedesktop.org Runtime.Yes, it does and while I’m not a pedant about saving every possible byte in a time of terabyte SSDs, static linking everything is just insanely wasteful.
Because static linking everything sucks.
isn’t that just flatpak with extra steps
Neat, I wish some of these projects weren’t so apt to prime themselves for corporate takeover and instead stuck more with copy left.
Though I think I prefer the guix set up of keeping a unique package based on checksum and linking those out as required.