[opensource-dev] Is 'STANDALONE' confusing?

Boroondas Gupte sllists at boroon.dasgupta.ch
Wed Feb 23 07:10:11 PST 2011


On 02/23/2011 10:57 AM, leliel wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence)
> <oz at lindenlab.com> wrote:
>> The real distinction, I think, is whether or not you are using
>> _installed_ libraries.  Normally, the viewer build has only minimal
>> reliance on the libs that are installed on the system itself
> In other words the viewer is normally built as a standalone
> application, i.e. the STANDALONE option does the exact opposite of
> what you'd expect given the definition of the word. So why not just
> invert the meaning of STANDALONE?
I guess (and that's really just a guess) today's "STANDALONE" refers to
not relying on network connectivity at /build/ time. Whether the shipped
application package is self-contained (i.e. has minimal reliance on
libraries installed on the end user's system) depends mainly on what
libraries get packaged with it (or linked statically, so that they're
included anyway).

Boroondas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/attachments/20110223/fce4a003/attachment.htm 


More information about the opensource-dev mailing list