| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: static or dynamic libpgport |
| Date: | 2011-12-09 16:35:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_V4GJNhP5BOBzpc_MTZ6oftrB3NpBV-9BKJqJwOOcDx1g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9 December 2011 16:13, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Is there any good reason why we shouldn't build and install a dynamic
> libpgport.so?
+1 in favour of building and installing a dynamic libpgport.so. I
generally agree with your analysis.
I've seen this issue crop up a good few times now. I'm a Fedora user
myself, but about 2 years ago I got into a "he said she said"
situation with an OpenSUSE package maintainer over this, when I had to
build Slony on that platform. I'm a bit hazy on the details now, but
iirc he thought that it wasn't necessary to ship libpgport.a in
particular (though I don't think that they have a beef with static
libraries generally) - maybe they took a cue from Redhat there?
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-12-09 17:08:30 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-12-09 16:13:03 | static or dynamic libpgport |