| 1 |
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 20:18 +0100, Renat Golubchyk wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi everyone! |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I need to build a static binary of a program I wrote. The problem is |
| 5 |
> that most packages only install dynamic version of the libraries. |
| 6 |
> There |
| 7 |
> are the "static" and "static-libs" USE flags, but only a tiny fraction |
| 8 |
> of packages support them. Modifying every relevant ebuild is not |
| 9 |
> really |
| 10 |
> a viable solution since the list of packages is quite long and could |
| 11 |
> change later. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> So what can I do if I'd like to avoid compiling every package |
| 14 |
> manually? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
There is no easy answer to your question. I think because, with a lot of |
| 17 |
programs it "just depends". Some packages already include static |
| 18 |
libraries (e.g. python and it doesn't make sense to compile the python |
| 19 |
package statically because it will break a great many things). Some |
| 20 |
programs just weren't designed to be static (e.g. imagemagick or |
| 21 |
apache). GTK+, i believe, can't be built statically as it uses dynload |
| 22 |
for themes, input methods, etc etc. Even most proprietary gtk-based |
| 23 |
software that I know of (e.g. Adobe Flash and VMWare) either are |
| 24 |
distributed with GTK+ linked dynamically or they provide their own GTK |
| 25 |
libs). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
You can apply "-static" to CFLAGS, but make sure you have a binpkg built |
| 28 |
first, as there is a chance you may break something. You can also try |
| 29 |
passing "--enable-static" to EXTRA_ECONF. That's probably safer than |
| 30 |
the former, but the same caveat applies. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Most of the things where static is "useful" and safe already have a |
| 33 |
static flag though or provide static libs by default. I think the only |
| 34 |
exception I've encountered was e2fsprogs. For that I usually compile my |
| 35 |
own static executables. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
HTH, |
| 38 |
-a |
Archives