Randy McMurchy randy at
Wed Dec 8 18:56:38 PST 2004

Bruce Dubbs wrote:

> Randy McMurchy wrote:
> >Anyone have any comments with any of these issues?
> >
> Well .a and .la files shouldn't be executable.  The .so files should be
> executable.  The documentation and threaded versions should be
> installed, but I'm not sure about the need for shared libraries.  Do we
> want to do it on principle or are there specific advantages for this
> application?

I didn't mention the .a libraries. :-) I mentioned the shared
libraries and accompanying .la files. As far as .la files being
executable, I don't see why they should be either. But it must
be a libtool thing because of the over 300 .la files I have on
one of my systems here, only 18 of them are 644 permissions. All
others are 755.

As far as shared versus static libs, I'm not sure if any packages
build against BIND9 libs, but there are some out there that look
for the BIND8 resolver library. Requires passing --enable-libbind
to configure to build it, though.

With the 12 binaries built by the BIND package it would seem to
be a performance thing if there were shared libs, as all of the
binaries link against the shared libs. Seems like loading a bunch
of redundant code if one uses the bind utilities frequently.

But I am no authority of dynamic versus static libraries. If
someone would care to enlighten me, I would appreciate the learning


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list