Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:51:55 +0000 From: "Sergey A. Osokin" <osa@FreeBSD.org> To: Yuri <yuri@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r478259 - in head/science: ghemical libghemical libint mpqc Message-ID: <20180828115155.GF30926@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <3724ce3d-8eba-b1df-cb0c-fd3f5ed35d77@freebsd.org> References: <201808272256.w7RMuioD090614@repo.freebsd.org> <20180828012033.GE30926@FreeBSD.org> <3724ce3d-8eba-b1df-cb0c-fd3f5ed35d77@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 07:15:48PM -0700, Yuri wrote: > On 8/27/18 6:20 PM, Sergey A. Osokin wrote: > > thanks for your hard work and take over maintainership. > > You are welcome! > > > I'd prefer to see the static library for the application as > > well as shared libraries cause it help in many cases. > > > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Static libraries are mostly useful within the build, when they are > produced and consumed internally. Otherwise, shared libraries are > generally better. > > Static library cons: > 1. They cause other binaries to become larger. > 2. They consume space on disk when installed along with the shared > libraries. > 3. They obscure which external libraries are used by the project. > 4. They make fixing security vulnerabilities more difficult. > > > Static library pros: > 1. They allow for a marginally better performance. > 2. They are a must when the target binary needs to be static for > security or other reasons (for example tor). There are very few cases > when static executables are needed. Thanks for the pros and cons, Yuri. Is there a chance to revert back changes related to the static library to return it back? -- Sergey Osokin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180828115155.GF30926>