1 |
On Monday, September 19, 2011 03:10:45 Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:39:32 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2011 18:16:30 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
> > > > '$(use_enable static-libs static)' themselves. While at it, it |
6 |
> > > > may be better to just drop the flag if no other package relies on |
7 |
> > > > it and no user has ever requested the static build of that |
8 |
> > > > package. |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > I don't see any harm with including IUSE="static-libs" for every |
11 |
> > > package that has working/usable static libraries[1]. Why wait for |
12 |
> > > users to request it on bugzilla when it's a near-zero-cost and |
13 |
> > > zero-maintenance to add it to ebuilds? |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > i missed this sentence from Michał's e-mail. unconditionally not |
16 |
> > building static libraries is against policy. if you install shared |
17 |
> > libs that get linked against, then you must provide static libraries |
18 |
> > unconditionally as well or support IUSE=static-libs. maintainers do |
19 |
> > not get to choose "no one has asked for it and no one in the tree is |
20 |
> > using it thus my ebuild isnt going to". |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Where is that policy? |
23 |
|
24 |
this policy predates much of the documentation process and is missed by the |
25 |
developer handbook. it is however mentioned explicitly in the devmanual. |
26 |
|
27 |
> AFAIK the policy was to 'follow upstream' which |
28 |
> usually means 'shared only'. I really don't see a reason to build |
29 |
> static libtorrent as upstream even doesn't support static linking. |
30 |
|
31 |
by that token, i'll go ahead and remove glibc's static libraries since |
32 |
upstream doesn't even support static linking |
33 |
-mike |