Re: How about using static link instead of dynamic loaded dlls?

[Jason Rumney]

Mike Woolley wrote:

> Would it be possible to link in the libraries statically and *not*
> require the DLL's at all at run-time?

> Of course, the resulting program is bigger, but does that matter
> these days?

It is more than that. Linking with third party libraries carries
legal obligations (many of which are self-imposed, as the licenses
of many of the libraries in question are more Public than Free).
I deliberately avoided making any binary distributed by FSF
dependant on those libraries to avoid the need to deal with these
legal issues, but I tried to do so in a way that does not cripple
the binary we distribute if the user choses to download those DLLs
separately from some other source.

I still think that this can be solved without any need for reverting
to static linking if you and any others having problems are prepared
to do some debugging and tell us exactly what is incompatible
between the different versions of DLL you have.