| 1 |
Am Sonntag 29 April 2007 12:36 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:54:12 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> "Jakub Moc" <jakub.moc@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 4/29/07, Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > I'm now using gentoo with EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-static" for a |
| 7 |
> > > while and it seems quite stable. Sometimes I encounter a package |
| 8 |
> > > that won't build with this setting, but that's a rare occasion. At |
| 9 |
> > > the moment this packages are for me: |
| 10 |
> > > dev-libs/libpcre |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Disabling static libs in libpcre makes sys-apps/grep w/ USE=pcre bomb |
| 13 |
> > out on compile... Just an example why you should always install both |
| 14 |
> > of them. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> No, that's an example of why you should sometimes install both. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
These are 5 packages out of 845 on my system. For those with version number it |
| 19 |
is only a compile time error, when make errornously tries to build a static |
| 20 |
target. Those without number are needed static by another package or don't |
| 21 |
like --disable-static (sys-apps/ed). That leaves 2 out of 845. |
| 22 |
So I'm with Ciaran here: It works for almost all packages and makes at least |
| 23 |
some difference. Maybe enough to (really) give the users the choice (without |
| 24 |
the ugly EXTRA_ECONF-hack)? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Those links Jakub posted are interesting, but I don't find an explanation why |
| 27 |
this decission was made. Maybe you have a link to that discussion too? |
Archives