| 1 |
Thomas Anderson <gentoofan23@g.o> posted |
| 2 |
20090419162155.GD21326@××××××××××××××××××××.net, excerpted below, on Sun, |
| 3 |
19 Apr 2009 12:21:55 -0400: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Why are we trying to get rid of static libraries again? I have not seen |
| 6 |
> any compelling reason to remove libraries that may be useful to our |
| 7 |
> users. Perhaps I've missed some discussion(in which case, I'd love to |
| 8 |
> read it), but this seems like an unnecessary complexity. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It isn't that "we" are trying to get rid of static libs, but that the |
| 11 |
*.la |
| 12 |
files they need for linking are a pain in the backside for everyone, |
| 13 |
while only a few people need them. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
See flameeyes' recent blog on the topic, here (watch the wrap): |
| 16 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2009/04/18/some-details-about-our-old-friends-the-la-files |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
In addition to that, for archs like amd64 that need to compile things |
| 19 |
twice if both static and dynamic libraries are provided (due to -fPIC |
| 20 |
requirements in the dynamic case only, see the recent headaches with |
| 21 |
mysql and the library amarok needed from it), killing the static libs |
| 22 |
means shorter merge times and can mean significantly less build script |
| 23 |
complication. =:^) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=238487 |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 29 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 30 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives