Michael A. Peters wrote: > It also could be solved within OO.o by static linking that library. Right...thats a solution... make OO.o package even bigger than it is..by prefering to statically link everything. I wouldn't call that a solution I'd call that a kludge. You are just trading problems by static linking AND perhaps creating more problems. If static linking were a generally good idea...we'd see it in use far more often than we do. Static linking certaintly isn't going to help the low system resource niche...which was already brought up in this thread as a reason to fix the packaging so as not to require mozilla. No... the right solution...for anyone who cares enough to actually do something productive...is to nudge the mozilla project into realizing that their work is valuable as an application and as library framework, and to do a better job of separating out the framework from the app. The move from Mozilla-the integrated applictions with a kitchen sink, to the modular model represented by firefox and thunderbird will hopefully make it easier for them to split their project up into pieces that make it easier for ALL distribution builders (even niche distros aimed low system resource and legacy system targets) to pick the pieces of the mozilla project they need for the features they want. It makes no sense for Fedora to specially re-divide the mozilla project into smaller...digestable pieces...thats just extra work for little overall gain(for the target Fedora Core is actually aimed at). How to divide the pieces is a decision that upstream should be making to accommodate all interested parties...so that re-dividing the pieces isn't something that has to be done again and again and again by downstream packagers everytime a new mozilla release is to be distributed. -jef
