|
|
|
|
|
|
by anyfoo
1616 days ago
|
|
|
Well, that's the point. The vendor needs to relink, and now you need to wait for an update from the vendor of each individual client of a library. With shared libraries, replacing the shared library is enough. What I did not understand is how static linking would have precluded the problem in the first place. I don't think that would have made those libraries less widely used. |
|
|
Yes, but if a shared library update includes a bug, it affects all your programs! That's why it is a double-edged sword: The same mechanism that solves the bugs can also deliver bugs.