Re: Stop shipping static libraries for NetBSD

["Aaron J. Grier" <agrier%poofygoof.com@localhost>]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 03:32:38PM -0400, Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc. wrote:
> On 19-Aug-08, at 3:13 PM, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> >NetBSD isn't a binary only vendor.  claiming so is a straw-man
> >argument.
> 
> I would have thought that the phrase "in its role as a binary-only
> vendor" was abundantly clear and could not be mis-interpreted.
> 
> It means in its role as a producer of ready-to-run binary
> distributions.
> 
> I.e. a role separate from its role as a source code vendor.

your argument is framed in terms of binary-only OS distribution.

> >the proposal is to stop shipping .a libraries by default.  that
> >doesn't lock anybody into requiring a dynamic runtime.
> 
> Clearly it does lock users into requiring a dynamic runtime.  I.e.
> under this proposal users of the binary NetBSD distribution will be
> required to use a dynamic OS runtime (it will be the only one they
> have) and they will also be required to create only dynamic runtimes
> for any applications that they may choose to build and install from
> source.

a binary distribution without provided .a libraries requires source
application users to use a dynamic runtime.  yes.  I understand this.  I
do not understand why it is a problem.

how many binary NetBSD consumers are source application consumers
wishing to create statically linked applications?

> The only way a binary NetBSD distribution user will be able to use a
> static runtime will be if some third party provides it for them.

correct.  do such users exist?  do such potential users exist?

> Perhaps you personally don't care about this, and that's OK, but as I
> said I think it would be a very sad thing and if it happens I think it
> will be a clear statement of how NetBSD is actually more interested in
> marketing perceptions and how it compares itself with big binary-only
> proprietary OS vendors than it is interested in following the
> published design goals it has for itself.

again with the binary-only strawman.  I do not understand how you get
from simplifying the build process by eliminating .a files to in
marketing perceptions and proprietary OS vendors.  perhaps you could
elucidate.

let me see if I can summarize your argument:

- user must be binary-only OS consumer
AND
- user must be source application consumer
AND
- user must be interested in statically-linking source applications

do such users exist?

-- 
  Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | 
agrier%poofygoof.com@localhost