| 1 |
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:57:35PM +0100, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:40:44 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > As part of that we also shouldn't deliver static libraries |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> OK, so you want to absolutely kill dead the only current sane way for |
| 8 |
> developers who use Gentoo to ship static binaries to their users' |
| 9 |
> target systems? Drive them away to another Linux distro that does |
| 10 |
> support being the build platform that they need? Or force everyone to |
| 11 |
> use EXTRA_ECONF"--enable-static" and hope for them that it works for |
| 12 |
> all packages? All just because static linking *between* ebuilds is bad? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This is close to my current case. Trying (in my own time) to build a |
| 15 |
(hopefully elegant) demo setup of Gentoo & crossdev with static libs |
| 16 |
enabled, to present as an alternative to CentOS which is currently the |
| 17 |
build env at my job (and static linkage is the way the product is built |
| 18 |
now). I run into cross-compilation problems when I enable |
| 19 |
USE=static-libs to any extent, despite the comment in Gentoo's fake |
| 20 |
/usr/lib64/*.so files saying "And yes, this works in the cross- |
| 21 |
compiling scenario as the sysroot-ed linker will prepend the real path". |
| 22 |
But it's what I'd rather have resolved than have no USE=static-libs at |
| 23 |
all. |
Archives