| 1 |
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:21:55 -0400 |
| 2 |
Thomas Anderson <gentoofan23@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Why are we trying to get rid of static libraries again? I have not |
| 5 |
> seen any compelling reason to remove libraries that may be useful to |
| 6 |
> our users. Perhaps I've missed some discussion(in which case, I'd |
| 7 |
> love to read it), but this seems like an unnecessary complexity. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I am a user. I don't want them. The current situation where qa@g.o |
| 10 |
requires .a files to be installed is just ghastly. A policy with no |
| 11 |
good reason whatsoever, other than "the ancients did it this way, so |
| 12 |
shall we." |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
TBH, i see more reasons for splitdebug and -ggdb being defaults than |
| 15 |
I do for static libs. And even then, I'd want a way to turn it off. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
A reasonable default would be --disable-static. Then libs that have |
| 18 |
in-tree consumers of their static libs could then make a use-flag, users |
| 19 |
who need them could use EXTRA_ECONF="--enable-static". |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
But that's not what I'm after. For now I just want a way to turn .a |
| 22 |
generation off. At the moment 500MB of prime space on /usr/lib64 is |
| 23 |
being used by .a files. That's about 450MB more than is needed (last I |
| 24 |
checked). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
/loki_val |
Archives