Why is the Dynamic linker DT_RPATH set, instead of configure it like this `/etc/ld.so.conf.d/swift.conf` or copying the libraries to a appropriate place?
For the initial release, we felt it was more important for things to work locally (and simply) for people downloading our snapshots than to support this and have more complicated installation instructions.
Will this be a solution to install Swift easy and on an appropriate directory?
$ wget -O - https://swift.org/install-ubuntu14.04.sh | bash
We also suspected that people would quickly try things like building Docker images with Swift, and this problem doesn't show up for users who are building their projects that way.
An other solution would be, to offer `.deb` packages for `libswiftCore.so` ...
So other packages can have `libswiftCore.so` ... as package dependency.
In addition to this the Swift compiler can be offered as `.deb` package, too.
On OS X it is also enough to run the `swift-[...]-osx.pkg` installer.
That said, we would welcome concrete proposals for how to improve the support for portable or distributable binaries. Those proposals should take into account whatever is happening with regard to system Swift packages.
In a previous thread, someone asked about statically linking in libswiftCore. That seems like a reasonable configuration to support on Linux to get easily-deployable independent binaries.
I have read the thread: "building static binaries / reducing library dependencies?" <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-users/2015-December/000008.html>
I don’t know if static linking can lead to license problems.
For example, if I want to publish something with the GPL License.
P.S. I apologize for my English. I am a German student.
On 05.12.2015, at 16:13, Joe Groff <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On Dec 4, 2015, at 8:49 PM, Daniel Dunbar <email@example.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Ugo Arangino <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: