| 1 |
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:07:00 +0200 |
| 2 |
Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Am Montag 30 April 2007 00:11 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:56:57 -0700 |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > Anyone who wants to build a static binary wants the static libs. |
| 9 |
> > > Given the difficulty in universally enabling or disabling their |
| 10 |
> > > builds because of build-system differences, building them and |
| 11 |
> > > tossing them in the trash with INSTALL_MASK, as Marius suggested, |
| 12 |
> > > seems like the best way to go. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > The best way to go or the only viable short term solution? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Best way to go, IMO. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> That's the point! Universally disabling static builds can't be a |
| 19 |
> longterm solution. The only sane way to do this is on a per ebuild |
| 20 |
> basis. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The thing about static libraries, is that the ebuild that creates them |
| 23 |
doesn't know whether anything else will want to use them. It may be |
| 24 |
that in practice, most libraries are never used in their static form - |
| 25 |
but the point is that the ebuild doesn't know enough information to |
| 26 |
make the decision. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
However, with INSTALL_MASK, the user makes the decision never to have |
| 29 |
static binaries, and thus gets a system free of static libraries. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives