|
|
|
|
|
|
by roqi
1111 days ago
|
|
|
> But I still think it's important to note that this isn't really advancing the state of the art like Apple would like you to believe. It's just a new middle-of-the-road approach with its own possibly-positive tradeoffs and pitfalls. It also seems that this new library format barely solves any problem and in the process bumps up the number of library types that developers need to onboard and possibly support. |
|
|
No, a mergeable library is just a special type of dynamic library, which adds some additional features and metadata. I can't imagine why you'd distribute both mergeable and non-mergeable dylibs?
In fact, rather than having to support more library types, developers may actually have to support less - because it may eliminate the need to ship both a static lib and a .dylib with your framework?