| 1 |
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:07:00 +0200 |
| 2 |
Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> And as it was pointed out before. Static builds are not needed most |
| 5 |
> of the time. There is only 2 packages that actually need the static |
| 6 |
> libraries. The rest fails due to upstream bugs in the |
| 7 |
> configure/makefile (recognizing --disable-static but only applying it |
| 8 |
> partially). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
In your test case. With USE=static or when checking the whole tree you'd |
| 11 |
almost definitely get more packages needing it. Note that I'm not |
| 12 |
saying that there shouldn't be another way to disable |
| 13 |
building/installing static libs or that the general message of static |
| 14 |
builds being irrelevant in many cases is wrong, just that the claim of |
| 15 |
"only 2 packages needing it" is bogus. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Marius |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 23 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives