On 00:46 Tue 13 Sep     , Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > If I understand correctly, this will break for any packages that 
> > don't use pkg-config to link. The maintainers will manually need to 
> > add pkg-config calls to the ebuilds of anything that could 
> > statically link against a library using only libtool and not 
> > pkg-config. Is that accurate?
> 
> Yes, seems accurate.
> 
> I can think of 'export PKG_CONFIG="$($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --static)' or 
> something like 'export FOO_LIBS="$($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --libs --static 
> foo)"' to accomplish getting static flags from an ebuild using 
> toolchain-funcs.eclass if required.
> 
> Or they do it like lvm2 and cryptsetup at upstream level and add 
> support for statically linking the tools in the build-system.
> 
> The .la files are not helping packages not using libtool in any case, 
> for example, those using cmake as build-system.
> 
> And I've yet to see a real, in portage residing, example of where this 
> would really break anything and when I will, I'll gladly help 
> migrating it to the example mentioned above... Overall, corner cases 
> that can be easily worked around, yet punting the *harmful* .la files.

That's rather shocking. All it would take is trying to statically build 
a package not using pkg-config that links against anything X11-related 
(since all of them have .pc files).

It's probably more that "nobody" cares about static building than that 
there aren't packages that would break.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com