Re: Read the text. Don't read *into* the text.

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: Read the text. Don't read *into* the text.
by Lubos Lunak on Thursday 12/Apr/2001, @16:15

The difference between shared and static libraries is that shared libraries are shared, while static are simply included in the executable, and therefore are not shared between different apps. Which means statically linked KDE would multiply memory usage and it would also multiply disk usage ( it wouldn't be another 20M, but maybe another 80M, or more probably 160M, or maybe even 320M, or maybe even more, I'm really not going to find out ).
This makes your 'universal static KDE binaries' idea useless and we're back at what's the best thing to do - to let the distros create the right packages ... after all, they get paid to create packages for people, unlike KDE developers, right ?

Related Links

·   Articles on KDE Official News
·   Also by Lubos Lunak
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: Read the text. Don't read *into* the text.
by WorLord on Thursday 12/Apr/2001, @16:27

Hm.

Is it then possible to compile it shared, and simply include all the necessary shared *files* (libraries) in the distribution tar.gz? I've done this before on my local machine (with KDE library files of a different version) so I know something like it could be done.

<Rant>
And will you all stop saying that I advocate the idea that the distro packagers should stop, or are going to stop, making packages already? I've already clarified *twice* now that I don't believe that this should be the case, and frankly, I'm tired of hearing it stated or insinuated.
</Rant>

--WorLord

[ Reply To This | View ]

That's better.
by not me on Saturday 14/Apr/2001, @13:38

Including all of KDE's shared libraries with it would reduce the memory requirements from a statically linked KDE. It still wouldn't be an optimal solution, though, because there would be duplicates of nearly every shared library in memory. For example, KDE would come with its own glibc, and the system's glibc would also have to be in memory at the same time for all other applications. It might be worth looking into, though. Certainly it's much better than a statically linked KDE.

Still, though, I think that KDE would be better off letting people download their distribution's packages, and staying out of the binary distribution business. It reduces the support load that KDE must bear, and it provides a smaller download, better performance, and better distro integration for the end user.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"Ironically, we are working on that right now!" -- Kurt Granroth
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.