Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:47:17 -0700 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Marko Lerota <mlerota@iskon.hr> Cc: FreeBSD Stable List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Upgrading to 7.0 - stupid requirements Message-ID: <9F019019-E23E-40B9-A070-7583C78DDE84@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <868x0ezh9u.fsf@zid.claresco.hr> References: <867igo3cih.fsf@zid.claresco.hr> <47C749CF.4010501@FreeBSD.org> <86eja7et3j.fsf@zid.claresco.hr> <47E0249C.8030700@FreeBSD.org> <868x0ezh9u.fsf@zid.claresco.hr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 19, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Marko Lerota wrote: > This thing should be solved. I liked the way that my OS have > independance > from ports. So no metter what I do with ports, my OS and his apps > will work. > And If I upgrade the OS I dont want to recompile ports for that. The traditional mechanism for ensuring that a binary would continue to work after an OS upgrade is to statically link in any libraries used, which would prevent the problem of upgrading some shared library that normally would be dynamically loaded and thus inherit a mixture of dependencies. The main disadvantage of static linking is that you can't update a library to fix bugs or whatever without having to relink the program the way you could update a shared library; secondarily, dynamic linking can reduce the overall system memory requirements for running lots of processes which use common shared libraries. -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9F019019-E23E-40B9-A070-7583C78DDE84>