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

Daniel Isenmann daniel.isenmann at gmx.de
Tue Dec 30 07:54:14 EST 2008

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:05:43 -0600
"Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Daniel Isenmann
> <daniel.isenmann at gmx.de> 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.

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list