Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:43:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:43:54 -0500 Received: from surf.cadcamlab.org ([156.26.20.182]:62360 "EHLO surf.cadcamlab.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:43:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 05:47:47 -0600 To: Roman Zippel Cc: kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [kbuild] Possibility to sanely link against off-directory .so Message-ID: <20021107114747.GM4182@cadcamlab.org> References: <20021106185230.GD5219@pasky.ji.cz> <20021106212952.GB1035@mars.ravnborg.org> <20021106220347.GE5219@pasky.ji.cz> <20021107100021.GL4182@cadcamlab.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Peter Samuelson Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 883 Lines: 21 [Peter Samuelson] > > Basically, what I'm saying is, I see no need for the existing .so in > > the kernel build, much less another one. Static libraries are ever so > > much easier to manage. [Roman Zippel] > If you want to limit people to the config tools in the kernel, there > is indeed no need for a shared library. Note that during the next > development cycle all graphical front ends are possibly removed. Huh? I don't get it. How is a shared library any better than a static library in this regard? I'm pondering the traditional advantages of shared libraries, and I cannot think of a single one that matters here. Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/