On 5/14/07, Thomas Christian Chust <address@hidden> wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> [...]
> On the other hand, we could eliminate all support for static linking,
> bowing to the One True Apple Way Of Doing Things [TM]. How do people
> feel about that?
I wouldn't mind if static linking was not supported. But in that case we
can just as well leave the situation as is:
Deliberately refusing to support static linking is a different policy statement. It's a difference between saying, "You can link stuff statically if you like" vs. "too bad, you're on your own, this isn't supposed to ever be done" The motive for such a policy, is a belief that things will break in weird and hard to track down ways if people do static linking against Apple's wishes. But, is there any actual evidence of that? Any static linking horror stories out there?
The main advantage of a dynamic only policy is shorter build times.