| 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 |
Archives