[openib-general] Re: [PATCH] uverbs with static libraries

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Hi, Roland!

Quoting r. Roland Dreier <roland at topspin.com>:
>     Michael> Put another way - whats the harm in always building the
>     Michael> static version as well? Other libraries (e.g. libibverbs)
>     Michael> build both static and shared versions by default.
> 
> I don't think of libmthca as a library really.  It's a plug in loaded
> by libibverbs.

Whats the point of a static libibverbs then?
Some people may want to build an executable without external
dependencies, they clearly need both libraries static.
Others may not care, they may be better of with shared.

> In some specialized circumstances it may be useful to
> build it statically

Hopefully it shall be there for the developer, who shall have no need to
build it. If the default is not to include the static version distributions
wont package it so it wont be there for developers to use.

If the default does build static and shared version,
distributions will put the static version in a separate -devel rpm
together with header files so people who dont build apps wont need it.

> but in general it's just unneeded confusion.
> 
>  - R.

What kind of confusion?

-- 
MST - Michael S. Tsirkin