Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Does anyone want|need a static (lib)perl still?

[Drake Wyrm]

Michael Cummings <mcummings@g.o> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 06:27 -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> > Personally, no, but others do. I should have been less ambiguous (and
> > obnoxious) in my initial response. Please don't assume that just because
> > _you_ don't need a static Perl, that _nobody_ needs a static Perl.
>
> Actually, the whole point to my even starting the email thread was to
> see if anyone was using the static library or not - i'm not aware of
> anything that builds only against the static, but i'm blissful on a lot
> of subject matters.

You said it yourself: Perl is the only package which requires a static
libperl. This results in...

MC> ...having a perl that will work even when everything dynamic is dead.

Which brings me to a point: it wouldn't affect me one way or the other.
None of my recovery tools rely on Perl correctly linking at runtime.
Truth be told, if I should ever break my system to the point where
dynamically linked binaries cannot run, my recovery system is the LiveCD
hanging on my lamp and some four-month-old backups.

[the important part]
But other people who are more cautious may rely on Perl in emergencies.
Some careful consideration was given to making that a possibility, and I
think it would be a shame to let it drop.
[/the important part]

In any case, you asked for opinions. There's mine.

-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ A unix signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent of ^
^ a black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets surrounding ^
^ a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like Heinlein or Dr. Who.  ^
^   -- Chris Maeda                                                      ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list