On Mar 4, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> 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.
What is the case against the default? Presumably the developer had something
in mind when he chose one or the other as the default. Personally, I like
static libs, and while they tend to increase the size of executables, they
prevent dynlib version skew; having said that, I don't care enough to change it
from the default.
The feeling I get from the list (obviously that only represents the "+w"
minority) is that people are rebuilding the world if they need to upgrade.
And, if they're not doing that, they're just leaving them as is. Are there
people doing piecemeal upgrades?
Overall, why do the books need a general position on this (other than: "Well,
this specific package needs it because --enable-static is broken")?
Q
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
