On Monday 20 October 2008 17:23:50 Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > However adding a menuconfig option could show static linking against > libm.a as an _OBVIOUS_ way to avoid deploy the whole libm.so on the > target system. In this case, I think the problem is not "if we can do > it" but "how we can let be obvious to others doing such a thing". In > few words move a [not obvious] thing in the [obvious] domain.
Has anybody ever actually needed to do this? We can already statically link busybox, and we can already dynamically link busybox. Is there a point to statically linking against SOME libraries but dynamically linking against others? Is this a common enough case to complicate the build system for?" Has anyone ever actually _needed_ to statically link libm but leave libc dynamically linked? Anyone? > Cheers, Rob _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
