| 1 |
Am Montag 30 April 2007 21:00 schrieb Kevin F. Quinn: |
| 2 |
> The thing about static libraries, is that the ebuild that creates them |
| 3 |
> doesn't know whether anything else will want to use them. It may be |
| 4 |
> that in practice, most libraries are never used in their static form - |
| 5 |
> but the point is that the ebuild doesn't know enough information to |
| 6 |
> make the decision. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
That's true for now, but it won't anymore when use dependencies are |
| 9 |
implemented. Then a corresponding useflag could be used to opt-in for static |
| 10 |
builds. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> However, with INSTALL_MASK, the user makes the decision never to have |
| 13 |
> static binaries, and thus gets a system free of static libraries. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Except the little detail that INSTALL_MASK definately breaks things. I tried |
| 16 |
it yesterday. |
| 17 |
The reason is that packages that build static libs (though --disable-static is |
| 18 |
set) will depend on other static libs. With INSTALL_MASK in place those |
| 19 |
static libs are never installed. Hence the build fails. |
| 20 |
So it is not a working option. |
Archives