Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 07:03:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 07:03:15 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.137]:16397 "EHLO smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 07:03:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:09:36 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: Peter Samuelson cc: kbuild-devel , Subject: Re: [PATCH] [kbuild] Possibility to sanely link against off-directory .so In-Reply-To: <20021107114747.GM4182@cadcamlab.org> Message-ID: References: <20021106185230.GD5219@pasky.ji.cz> <20021106212952.GB1035@mars.ravnborg.org> <20021106220347.GE5219@pasky.ji.cz> <20021107100021.GL4182@cadcamlab.org> <20021107114747.GM4182@cadcamlab.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 912 Lines: 23 Hi, On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > 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. Shared libraries can be loaded dynamically, this means distribution can package the graphical front ends and the user doesn't need to install huge development packages. bye, Roman - 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/