Re: [arch-dev-public] Shared or static build of Opera

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:05:43 -0600 "Aaron Griffin" wrote:

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Daniel Isenmann wrote:

...

Hi,

in the last time this topic appears again and again. A few weeks/months ago I have changed the opera package from the shared build Qt3 version to the static build Qt4 version for i686. I have done this because some users wanted it. Opera doesn't provide a shared build Qt4 version at all and there is also no x86_64 Qt4 version, just Qt3 (shared and static) version.

Now I want your opinion about this topic. Should we stay at the Qt4 static build for i686 or should we changed back to the Qt3 shared build? Personally I don't care if it's a shared or static version. If we stay with the i686 static Qt4 version, then the following bug entry is right and I have to remove the Qt dependency for the i686 version because of the static build.

Here is the bug entry at flyspray: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12588

There's something to be said for keeping the builds the same on both architectures, but this is Opera's goof, not ours, really.

What's the size difference between shared and static builds?

The size differs only in 2MB in tar.bz2. That's not really much at all.