Re:The bad side of systemd: two recent systemd failures
by vodik on Friday December 12, 2014 @12:45PM
(#8741524)
Well the core of the issue here is you can't really staticly link against a library that depends on dlopen/dlsym (nss system is built around this).
I mean, you could, but now your staticly linked binary still depends on other dlsym'd code. So whats the point?
(Not trying to make an argument that this is good or bad behaviour)
Re:The bad side of systemd: two recent systemd failures
by ultramancool on Friday December 12, 2014 @04:02PM
(#8742665)
I understand, but the question then becomes why your library depends on dlopen and why you don't offer an alternative static method as Qt's "plugins" do. Doesn't seem like good design on the part of the NSS devs to me, and probably a poor choice of library on the part of the systemd devs to me. But maybe I'm missing something.
Re:The bad side of systemd: two recent systemd failures
by the_why_of_y on Saturday December 13, 2014 @05:33AM
(#8744828)
The library that depends on dlopen is glibc.
Re:The bad side of systemd: two recent systemd failures
by ultramancool on Monday December 15, 2014 @09:52AM
(#8752215)
You can statically link glibc, so I'm pretty sure that's not right...
... what kind of nonsense is that? Almost every library supports static linking to a basic degree at least. Heck, I statically link giant things like Qt and Boost every day at work.