[GRASS5] how to minimize dependencies in GRASS binaries - with specificapplication to Mac OS X systems

[Moritz Lennert]

Scott Mitchell said:
>
> I think that if the compilation of this binary package had used static
> libraries instead of dynamic, then this problem would not have come up
> because the required functions would have been compiled into the GRASS
> binary modules.  This would get rid of some of the specific issue, but
> would potentially make the binary distribution much bigger.
>
> Based on these (mis?)understandings, I suppose that as long as licenses
> allow it, any other libraries that are missing (e.g. in this case,
> libintl.*.dylib) could be copied in to the binary distribution's grass
> library directory, the same way we now provide libgdal.  As long as the
> number of libraries involved are reasonable, this could be the way to
> go.
>

I think that one of the arguments against including libraries into the
code is the headache this causes in terms of keeping them in a reasonable
state (up to date and bug free). Someone would have to actively follow
developments in the upstream version. Linking avoids that. This seems to
me to be a much more important reason than binary size.

Moritz