**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Thu Mar 25 02:59:56 2021 Mar 25 07:50:01 good morning Mar 25 09:10:25 Why doesn't the SDK include static libraries by default? Doesn't an SDK without the necessary static libraries kind of defeat the point? Mar 25 10:35:02 mort: nope, it doesn't defeat the point. Mar 25 10:36:37 depends on which point Mar 25 10:39:29 mru: hey, mort is talking about THE point.how dare you question it. Mar 25 10:39:40 there are many points Mar 25 10:39:47 ask any hedgehog Mar 25 10:40:30 but... but..... THE POINT! Mar 25 10:40:50 wait isn't the point of an SDK that you can use it to cross compile software for the target Mar 25 10:41:12 mort: it is one of the primary use cases for sure. Mar 25 10:41:49 so if there's a static library which is necessary to cross compile your software for the target, that static library should probably be in the SDK right Mar 25 10:41:52 LetoThe2nd: there are no less than 8 points in that statement, 9 if you count the one in the exclamation mark Mar 25 10:42:12 I don't see how static libraries are different from dynamic libraries in principle here Mar 25 10:42:50 an argument can be made for including static libs Mar 25 10:43:02 but not including them doesn't mean the sdk is useless Mar 25 10:43:08 mort: you have to realize that you are talking about the specific use case of "needing static libraries". this is not the default at the moment. Mar 25 10:43:12 (well, any more so than SDKs are in general) Mar 25 10:43:35 it might be debated of course, but its certainly not "without static libs an SDK is useless" Mar 25 10:43:51 LetoThe2nd: can you explain why a shared library should be included but why a static one shouldn't Mar 25 10:44:15 the SDK is effectively useless when some of the core libraries which are needed to work with the target is a static library Mar 25 10:44:46 shouldn't != isn't Mar 25 10:44:48 mort: can you explain why you are nagging me over a default value decision that you can easily adjust to you liking with about 20 keystrokes in a configuratio nfile? Mar 25 10:44:59 yes Mar 25 10:45:06 I am trying to understand the reasoning Mar 25 10:45:16 you're not trying to explain the reasoning Mar 25 10:45:35 mort: you are defining your use case that includes that one magic static library as the default. it doesn't apply to the rest of use. i live happily without static libs. Mar 25 10:45:41 that is the explanation. Mar 25 10:45:44 if it helps put your mind at ease, just pretend they flipped a coin over what the default would be Mar 25 10:46:12 so if you willingly decide to use static libs, then that decision also includes the duty to adjust the sdk as needed. Mar 25 10:46:23 but what's the essential difference between static and shared libraries which makes it such that including all shared objects is a reasonable default and excluding all static libraries is a reasonable default Mar 25 10:46:39 mru: well i would argue that it is more "usual-distro" like, but the coin flip makes sense too. Mar 25 10:46:47 mort: it works for 99.98% of users Mar 25 10:46:58 mru: ++ Mar 25 10:46:59 that's not an answer though Mar 25 10:47:05 it is. Mar 25 10:47:08 no Mar 25 10:47:09 and yet it's the truth Mar 25 10:47:29 look, you're _special_ Mar 25 10:47:36 rejoice! Mar 25 10:48:08 mort: feel free to write a sob story mail to oe-architecture where you go *****ich about feeling neglected because the standard use case doesn't work for you. hooray, you add to diversity! you're one of the 0.2%! Mar 25 10:48:23 * LetoThe2nd should have lunch. Mar 25 10:48:24 if I was trying to formulate what an SDK is for, I would've said that it's a collection of libraries, headers and toolchains useful for compiling software for the target Mar 25 10:48:38 I don't understand where the difference between static and shared libraries comes in Mar 25 10:49:00 LetoThe2nd: I'm trying to understand something, I'm not bitching about anything Mar 25 10:49:15 this "community" is super unwelcoming apparently, fuck you all Mar 25 10:49:51 i admit i don't want to f*** all. Mar 25 10:50:08 I'm not doing something wrong by trying to understand why something is as it is, and your implication that I am "nagging" because I'm asking for why something is the way it is, is actually horrible Mar 25 10:50:20 this is how people learn about your project, right? Mar 25 10:51:01 here's what I think is happening: You don't know the answer, but you're a really insecure always online person who's afraid to admit it, so you blame me for asking Mar 25 10:51:17 fuck you Mar 25 10:51:23 no. we have both made the point that there was a decision that obviously suits the majority of users. so its a sensible default. as any other use case can be covered by adjusting documented settings, i really don't get the porblem. Mar 25 10:51:36 mort: please watch your language. Mar 25 10:51:40 no, fuck you Mar 25 10:51:55 i see. thank you. Mar 25 10:53:12 we both know, I hope, that "it happens to work the way it is now" is in no way an explanation for the reasoning which went into the choice to make it the way it is Mar 25 10:53:47 it might totally be that there is no such reason, that someone just literally flipped a coin, but I assume there is a reason, that someone thought about this for at least a second when deciding what goes into an SDK Mar 25 10:54:35 LetoThe2nd: you really shouldn't go around saying that anyone who asks a question you don't know the answer to is "bitching" or "nagging" about anything Mar 25 10:56:47 I'm just going to take your word for it though, that the openembedded project doesn't actually consider its choices when deciding how these systems work, that all choices are just made on a whim Mar 25 10:56:53 the reason has been explained to you Mar 25 10:56:57 no it hasn't Mar 25 10:57:03 it's not our problem that you refuse to accept the explanation Mar 25 10:57:21 it has been explained to me that the way it's now happens to work for most people, that's not an explanation for why the choice was made in the first place Mar 25 10:58:13 put it this way then: the reason for the default setting is that it works for most people Mar 25 10:58:49 unless you're going to claim that when designing the SDK part of the feature, someone actively went out and gathered statistics about how many people it would impact to include static libraries, and concluded that not enough people are impacted by the lack of static libraries for them to be worth whatever cost they have, you're wrong Mar 25 10:59:26 the only claim I'm making that you are being silly Mar 25 10:59:57 in the time you've been bitching here, you could have built the damn sdk with whatever options you want Mar 25 11:00:02 no, you're making the claim that the choice was made to exclude static libraries because the person who made that decision knew that not including static libraries wouldn't affect many people Mar 25 11:00:18 I have built the SDK with the options I want, I'm just trying to understand Mar 25 11:00:58 I wasn't there when the default were set, so I can't say for sure what whoever did it was thinking Mar 25 11:01:06 the answer "I don't know why that choice was made" would be 100% acceptable, but that's not what you're doing, you're claiming that the choice was made because the person who made the choice knew that not including static libraries would impact few people Mar 25 11:01:39 based on my own experience, I can say that static libraries are rarely required Mar 25 11:01:59 it's reasonable to assume that the person setting that default value had similar experiences Mar 25 11:02:48 any reasonable person with typical experience in the field would likely make the same choice Mar 25 11:03:29 there's nothing more to it Mar 25 11:03:34 there is no sinister plot Mar 25 11:03:44 who said anything about sinister Mar 25 11:04:17 nobody, I just wanted to make that clear Mar 25 11:04:34 and to be perfectly clear: there is no plot at all, sinister or otherwise Mar 25 11:05:01 if a lot of people complained about the default, it would probably be changed Mar 25 11:05:10 why don't you start a petition? Mar 25 11:06:01 it's just surprising to me because if I was making the decision, my thought process would've been something like this: The SDK is likely to be used to compile the packages in the distro for local development; if some packages in the distro depend on other packages which only provide static libraries, those packages will probably depend on those Mar 25 11:06:01 static libraries; therefore, if there are packages which only provide static libraries, the SDK will probably be used in a way which depends on those static libraries Mar 25 11:06:28 what would be valuable is to know which step in that chain of reasoning is incorrect, because that might imply that I'm using the SDK feature incorrectly Mar 25 11:06:36 that's why I asked for the reasoning in the first place Mar 25 11:06:42 which package provides only static libraries? Mar 25 11:06:51 some of my own libraries Mar 25 11:07:10 well, the person choosing the defaults couldn't possibly have known that, now could he? Mar 25 11:07:13 there are reasons, I won't go into them here but they basically boil down to "Google code is messy" Mar 25 11:07:46 I'm not disputing your reasons Mar 25 11:08:01 the person choosing the defaults would know that static libraries exist, and make a choice about whether to include static libraries or not, and they would have known that the static libraries may be needed to compile the packages which depend on those static libraries Mar 25 11:08:40 are there any static-only packages in the OE tree? Mar 25 11:08:47 excluding static libraries kind of implies that the SDK is not meant to be used to compile the software which the distribution includes Mar 25 11:08:54 I don't know, probably not Mar 25 11:09:07 I don't know of any either Mar 25 11:09:42 which means not including them _by default_ is a reasonable choice Mar 25 11:10:17 only if we assume that breaking distros which depend on staitc-only libraries by default is a reasonable choice Mar 25 11:10:37 if you're creating such a distro, it's your job to change the default Mar 25 11:10:47 which it might be, but it seems like a weird choice since including the static (or at least static-only) libraries doesn't seem to have a big cost Mar 25 11:11:42 why don't you run git blame and find out who set the default, then go and harrass them? Mar 25 11:13:01 this wasn't meant to be harassment, it _was meant_ to be a very simple question ("why was this done this way?") with two possible outcomes; "I don't know" (possibly "I don't know but I think X") or an actual reason from someone who knows either the history or the assumptions which went into the choices involved Mar 25 11:13:47 but asking that question is apparently nagging and bitching Mar 25 11:14:12 LetoThe2nd: I'm curious how including static libraries would "defeat the point" though Mar 25 11:14:13 you were given a simple answer: it works for the vast majority of cases, the rest can easily change it Mar 25 11:14:28 you chose not to accept that explanation, demaning a "better" one Mar 25 11:14:35 that implies that there's a very very good reason why it is the way it is, that making the other choice would make the SDK less useful somehow Mar 25 11:14:38 and I want to know why Mar 25 11:15:13 mru: "it happens to work" isn't a reason for why the decision was made that way, yes Mar 25 11:15:33 that's not what I said Mar 25 11:16:23 LetoThe2nd's answer that including static libraries would defeat the point of an SDK implies that there's a good underlying reason which is broader than "excluding static libraries doesn't affect that many people" Mar 25 11:16:35 I want that reason Mar 25 11:16:49 he didn't say that Mar 25 11:17:19 sorry, you're right, I misread that part. Mar 25 11:17:57 for most people, the static libs would be nothing but waste of space Mar 25 11:18:29 sure, that's a reasonable explanation Mar 25 11:18:33 if you need them, you can easily enable them Mar 25 11:19:08 but asking the question in the first place is wrong, right, because we wouldn't want people to learn things about this project would we now Mar 25 11:19:42 them naggers bitching about wanting to know things about this project Mar 25 11:21:12 do you think being rude is a good way of getting answers? Mar 25 11:21:44 no, I'm not trying to get answers anymore Mar 25 11:21:58 beside, the one you just provided is pretty reasonable Mar 25 11:23:37 I was already nagging after the 4th message so being nice wouldn't have been a better way I presume Mar 25 11:24:11 don't pretend _I'm_ the one who started out as rude here Mar 25 11:24:17 there's no need to pretend Mar 25 11:24:33 I'm glad we agree Mar 25 11:24:56 I mean, pretending is for things that aren't true Mar 25 11:25:05 mort: a) please do watch your language. b) static libs were disabled by default in OE a few years ago as they're old fashioned and not used by a majority of users Mar 25 11:25:49 mort: they take up a lot of space, take time to build and package and if nobody is using them, there is little point enabling by default. They've been disabled for several years, we get few complains. You can also choose to enable them, they should still work fine Mar 25 11:26:18 that's all very reasonable Mar 25 11:26:19 mort: there is a tiny subset of static libs that are still built and included for libgcc/libc pieces are those are actively used **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Thu Mar 25 17:43:29 2021 **** ENDING LOGGING AT Fri Mar 26 02:59:56 2021