| 1 |
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:14:36 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:10:50 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Peter Alfredsen <loki_val@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > A reasonable default would be --disable-static. Then libs that have |
| 7 |
> > in-tree consumers of their static libs could then make a use-flag, |
| 8 |
> > users who need them could use EXTRA_ECONF="--enable-static". |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If you're going to do that, why not do it as an EAPI thing? This has |
| 11 |
> the added bonus that there's a clean migration path... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If we ever decide to do that, eapi would be a sane way to do it. Right |
| 14 |
now, we're only discussing making static libs configurable. The other |
| 15 |
bits we can deal with when we come to them. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
/loki_val |
Archives