| 1 |
Am Montag 30 April 2007 00:11 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:56:57 -0700 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Anyone who wants to build a static binary wants the static libs. Given |
| 6 |
> > the difficulty in universally enabling or disabling their builds |
| 7 |
> > because of build-system differences, building them and tossing them |
| 8 |
> > in the trash with INSTALL_MASK, as Marius suggested, seems like the |
| 9 |
> > best way to go. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The best way to go or the only viable short term solution? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That's the point! Universally disabling static builds can't be a longterm |
| 14 |
solution. The only sane way to do this is on a per ebuild basis. Since only |
| 15 |
the ebuild "knows" whats the right way to disable static libs or whether this |
| 16 |
package supports it at all. |
| 17 |
As of now most packages use or ignore --disable-static in a proper way, but |
| 18 |
since GNU autotools are not that popular anymore the "ignore" part of the |
| 19 |
tree is inclined to grow. |
| 20 |
This method has the advantage that it either fails at compile time or works |
| 21 |
fine. Something gives me the feeling that INSTALL_MASK will break things |
| 22 |
after installation and silently, which is a bad thing. So no solution here. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
And as it was pointed out before. Static builds are not needed most of the |
| 25 |
time. There is only 2 packages that actually need the static libraries. The |
| 26 |
rest fails due to upstream bugs in the configure/makefile |
| 27 |
(recognizing --disable-static but only applying it partially). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
So --disable-static seems to me like the only |
| 30 |
half-sane-partial-short-time-solution. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
cheers |
Archives