6 ms·

I think you misunderstand how widely used libcurl is. On Arch Linux, it has 291 reverse dependencies: https://archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/curl/ https://a

I think you misunderstand how widely used libcurl is. On Arch Linux, it has 291 reverse dependencies: https://archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/curl/ https://archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/curl/. It is e.g. used by git, cargo (Rust's package manager) and cmake (C++ build system). It's literally installed on 99.99% of all Arch Linux systems: https://www.archlinux.de/packages/core/x86_64/curl https://www.archlinux.de/packages/core/x86_64/curl.

ahartmetz 5y ago
I think that the kind of "knowledge" you are correcting is informing much of the discussion here. And it seems like the motivation is "I want to make MY thing as easy to ship as possible!". There are hundreds of binaries in a Linux system and no one wants to rebuild all of them when an important library is updated.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > There are hundreds of binaries in a Linux system and no one wants to rebuild all of them when an important library is updated. Oh, Idunno... How certain are you of this, and why?
  - pdkl95 5y ago
    VERY certain $ find /{,usr/}{,s}bin/ -maxdepth 1 -type f \ | wc -l 5616 $ du -h --total --no-dereference \ $(find /{,usr/}{,s}bin/ -maxdepth 1 -type f) \ | tail -n 1 1.3G total That's with shared libraries and debug symbols stripped. If I upgrade libc, why would I want to also waste a massive amount of time rebuilding all 5616 binaries? Of course, even if we ignore the insane buld time, I don't have the source for some of those binaries, and in a few cases the source no longer exists. In those cases, should I be forced to only use those programs with the (buggy) versions of the libraries they were originally built with?
    - scatters 5y ago
      1.3 GB? It's 2021, I can read that from SSD into memory in less than the blink of an eye. Hard disk is fast and cheap enough that it's worth keeping builds around to incremental rebuild against new libraries. Also, typically tests require a build tree, and you are going to rerun tests on the relinked binaries, aren't you?
bch 5y ago
You’re absolutely right, I did misunderstand :/ Colour me a bit surprised, and corrected.

ahartmetz 5y ago

I think that the kind of "knowledge" you are correcting is informing much of the discussion here. And it seems like the motivation is "I want to make MY thing as easy to ship as possible!". There are hundreds of binaries in a Linux system and no one wants to rebuild all of them when an important library is updated.

CRConrad 5y ago
> There are hundreds of binaries in a Linux system and no one wants to rebuild all of them when an important library is updated. Oh, Idunno... How certain are you of this, and why?
- pdkl95 5y ago
  VERY certain $ find /{,usr/}{,s}bin/ -maxdepth 1 -type f \ | wc -l 5616 $ du -h --total --no-dereference \ $(find /{,usr/}{,s}bin/ -maxdepth 1 -type f) \ | tail -n 1 1.3G total That's with shared libraries and debug symbols stripped. If I upgrade libc, why would I want to also waste a massive amount of time rebuilding all 5616 binaries? Of course, even if we ignore the insane buld time, I don't have the source for some of those binaries, and in a few cases the source no longer exists. In those cases, should I be forced to only use those programs with the (buggy) versions of the libraries they were originally built with?
  - scatters 5y ago
    1.3 GB? It's 2021, I can read that from SSD into memory in less than the blink of an eye. Hard disk is fast and cheap enough that it's worth keeping builds around to incremental rebuild against new libraries. Also, typically tests require a build tree, and you are going to rerun tests on the relinked binaries, aren't you?

bch 5y ago

You’re absolutely right, I did misunderstand :/ Colour me a bit surprised, and corrected.