Re: New package managment

[Philipp Gühring <p.guehring@enemy.org>]

>Static linked binaries are evil! They eat disk space, RAM and bandwidth,
>start longer and if the library is upgraded (e.g. for security reasons) 

I had too many troubles on systems, which had a
incompatible version of the libstdc++, ...
Ok, then i suggest providing dynamically and statically linked
binaries. 

game-static
game-dynamic

And a script which tries to load the dynamically linked first.


>you have to upgrade the binary also to use it. Static binaries are
good >for 
>things like root's shell, chrooted ls or the likes, but nothing more.

Ok, but what if a user has no administrator access, and the needed
libraries are missing?

I do not like static linking too. But the first priority is that it
works, and only the second priority is that it works nice, doesn´t
consume too much memory, ...

>And BTW for binary only programs it violates GPL if you statically
>link libc or another GPL'ed library.

My RPM package says that the libc is under the following license:
1981-95 Regents of the University of California. , Free Software
Foundation, Inc. 
Is that the GPL?

Does it really violate the GPL, if I link statically to a GPL
library and include the sourcecode of the library?

>The normal solution for dynamically linked binaries is to add package
>dependency in the package. With debian it's not a problem and for
>example
>apt will prompt you to download all dependencies when installing
>package.
Yes. But RPM isn´t doing this.

>IIRC rpm has file dependencies only (which is not so useful) but
>maybe Redhat has already changed it?
Yes, RPMs can have dependencies. But there is no automatical download
or something like that. There is only the error-message, if it
doesn´t fulfill the dependencies.

Greetings,
--
~ Philipp Gühring              p.guehring@poboxes.com
~ http://www.poboxes.com/p.guehring  ICQ UIN: 6588261
~ Please change p.guehring@xpoint.at to p.guehring@poboxes.com