On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 05:43:08PM +0100, Ragnar Thomsen wrote: > > Are we including this option as default for those packages that support it? > Or should it just be mentioned under "Command Explanations"? > > Currently, the use of this option is not consistent throughout the book. > > IMHO it should be included as default. Does anyone have use for the static > libs? > > -Ragnar-
I see that Andy has been doing that. I started adding it as an option when I updated packages - before that, everybody got whatever the package defaulted to. Personally, I agree that I don't want static libs. Bruce took a different view (on lfs-dev in January, I think). Other people who have been active recently (Wayne, DJ) have never expressed any opinion. At sometime (maybe a couple of years ago) a package where I had been using --disable-static didn't like that option and I had to change it to --enable-static. Might just have been a bad configure script, but now I use --enable-static=no on packages that are new to me, because it is what configure --help now reports. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
