.lib and .dll during deployment of C++ code to Github

Question

I understand that .lib is static library linking and .dll is dynamic. This means that when .exe is produced, .lib does not need to be around for .exe to work. However, .dll need to be put in the correct relative path for .exe to reference and run.

My question is for .lib. When uploading the source code to Github, do I include .lib file in the project folder as well? What is the best practice in doing so?

Most of the tutorial that shows how to install library makes us link .lib file to its original folder and move .dll file into the working project folder. So should I move .lib file into my project folder as well? If I don't do that, it means the person that download my source code will have to go find the corresponding .lib file to link and compile right?

Answer 1

Your question is really about dependency management. Irrelevant of .lib or .dll, these are just different sorts of dependencies. Your question is if someone clones my repository, how can they build it?

The answer is you need a build script, makefile, rakefile, jake file, etc... something that the user can run to do the build. For instances this could be a README which says: "go download the files you need from website X". Alternatively you can do as you suggested an put the necessary dependencies within your repository. Legally this isn't always permitted as it is considered "redistribution". The best approach is to use some sort of dependency management. Depending on the language you are using there are different dependency management solutions. I would recommend only using libraries (.dll, .lib, .tar, .*) from public dependency repositories.

In Java, the recommended approach is using something called maven. Ruby has gems, node.js has npm packages. This is nothing more than a file with a list of dependencies, and a tool which knows how to retrieve them. To build my libraries it is as simple as running npm install && node make.js which says run the nodejs package manager (dependency manager) to download all the necessary files, and then run the build script.

For C++ it could be something like make install && make which would require a makefile you configure to say these are the things which need to happen before the project can be built.

Personally C++ has poor dependency management, but that may turn out some negative responses, I'll just say dependency management in C/C++ isn't my favorite and for mostly internal software or small use I would still with committing the lib with your code. If there is a public repository which contains your lib files you could always generate a makefile/Cmake to curl or wget as part of the build process before you call gcc compiler.

Answer 2

My own "IMHO answer" would be: "GitHub is concerned with source code." Therefore, I would not suggest including a binary .lib file there. And, I probably also would not put a binary .dll file there, either.

To clarify the difference between the two files ...

A .lib file is a library of object-code, resulting from previous compiles, that can now be referenced by the linker. The linker will choose whatever it needs, then copy these items out of the library into whatever it may be building at the time.

A .dll is a dynamic library ... "dynamic" in the sense that applications (and, other DLLs ...) can load it and unload it at runtime. (The Windows program-launcher also automatically loads any DLLs that are directly or indirectly referenced by anything it is launching.)

.dll's are "all or nothing." You load them in their entirety, at runtime. .lib's, by contrast, are true libraries, which are used only by the linker.

=== Edit: And the next Answer, IMHO, "nailed it."

Answer 3

Git repos are about code, and you should not have binaries in your git repos.

However, github has a feature called releases which allows you to upload binary assets alongside your tagged source releases.

You can add your compiled libraries there.