Kevin P. Fleming kpfleming at
Wed Dec 8 19:09:54 PST 2004

Randy McMurchy wrote:

> 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.

That is probably just an artifact of automake, and not intentional. 
There is no value in them being executable, they are not useful in that 
way. If the BIND Makefile installs them non-executable, we should leave 
them alone.

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

You've hit it right on the head... if named/dig/nslookup/rndc/etc. are 
built against the shared libraries, that would both reduce the size of 
the binaries and also reduce their memory footprint. The downside is 
that changes to the shared library can have a negative effect on the 
existing binaries (if they are not changed at the same time), but since 
these binaries and libraries are always installed together, I don't see 
that as a big concern.

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list