Le lundi 28 mai 2007 à 17:24 +0200, Patrice Dumas a écrit :
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 05:12:55PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Replace one can not with it's too much hassle to and you'll see where I was going. Reduce the hassle factor doing things right and suddenly static libs will get less attractive.
Ok. What will be replacing them?
Help create properly autotooled rpm transparently for people that don't care about infrastructure stuff. You already have cluster managers that use rpm as a payload. That takes care of the deployment, of the interfering stuff in /usr/local, etc
In any case I doubt it may be as simple as what we have with static libs, with statically linked executables created by adding -static to the link command line...
You focus too much on the current technical solution and not enough on user needs. The problem is not to replicate the same old & broken solution ad vitam eternam but to make the correct technical solution attractive enough for users to switch.
I won't share nuggets of ass-backwards common wisdom here, that would strike to close to my employer systems, but sometimes you need to re-asses why a particular solution was chosen at a time and if you can not achieve the original goals better now with stuff that was not available a decade ago.