Mail Archives: cygwin/1998/06/27/04:16:13
Robert DOT Cross AT scottish-newcastle DOT co DOT uk writes:
> # That sounds like the perfect way of making non-DLL requiring EXEs w/
> # Cygnus.. But, would statically linked EXEs be worth the extra size? That's
> # my main concern, especially since if a person is running more than 1 Cygnus
> # compiled application at a time, you are saving on memory space and harddrive
> # space to go with dynamic linking.
>
> Agreed. What I was getting at was the situation where you want to deliver a
> "gnu-win32"
> generated ''solution'' with the minimum of hassle. With the static link, you
> one have one
> (veRY LARge) exe, rather than one exe and a DLL that has to go lord-knows-where
> - maybe
> package creation, a la Solaris is the answer?
>
> What do you think?
>
> Bob Cross.
Every Windows program I have ever installed has stuck a bunch of DLL's
on the system. They don't go "lord-knows-where", they simply have to
go somewhere in your (windows) PATH, typically \windows\system for
Win95 systems, \winnt\system or \winnt\system32 on WinNT. Or you can
designate a directory for the Cygnus stuff and make sure your
installation causes it to be added to PATH.
In short, I think static linking would be a waste of time and disk
space. People have been conditioned to accept DLL's being part of any
installation. Look how many are installed by, for instance, Office97.
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".
- Raw text -