1 |
On 00:46 Tue 13 Sep , Samuli Suominen wrote: |
2 |
> > If I understand correctly, this will break for any packages that |
3 |
> > don't use pkg-config to link. The maintainers will manually need to |
4 |
> > add pkg-config calls to the ebuilds of anything that could |
5 |
> > statically link against a library using only libtool and not |
6 |
> > pkg-config. Is that accurate? |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Yes, seems accurate. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> I can think of 'export PKG_CONFIG="$($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --static)' or |
11 |
> something like 'export FOO_LIBS="$($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --libs --static |
12 |
> foo)"' to accomplish getting static flags from an ebuild using |
13 |
> toolchain-funcs.eclass if required. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Or they do it like lvm2 and cryptsetup at upstream level and add |
16 |
> support for statically linking the tools in the build-system. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> The .la files are not helping packages not using libtool in any case, |
19 |
> for example, those using cmake as build-system. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> And I've yet to see a real, in portage residing, example of where this |
22 |
> would really break anything and when I will, I'll gladly help |
23 |
> migrating it to the example mentioned above... Overall, corner cases |
24 |
> that can be easily worked around, yet punting the *harmful* .la files. |
25 |
|
26 |
That's rather shocking. All it would take is trying to statically build |
27 |
a package not using pkg-config that links against anything X11-related |
28 |
(since all of them have .pc files). |
29 |
|
30 |
It's probably more that "nobody" cares about static building than that |
31 |
there aren't packages that would break. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Thanks, |
35 |
Donnie |
36 |
|
37 |
Donnie Berkholz |
38 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer |
39 |
Gentoo Linux |
40 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.com |