:> Any updates? My quick test involving running pkg_version on a system with 92 :> installed ports, which is very make-intensive operation if ports have origin :> recorded, as pkg_version(1) runs `make -V' for each port, shown that :> statically-compiled make is about 15% faster than dynamically-compiled. Sound like a :> reasonable speed gain for 100k binary size increase. What do people think? : :IFF it's only 100k difference, methink it's a no brainer. A static make is a :good thing, if it's so good performancewise that I say go for it. pkg_version :is quite intensive, that's for sure! : :Bye, : Andrea 'make' is one of those programs that fork/exec's lots of copies of itself, even when used without -j parallelization. Try doing a 'make' in virtually any ports directory, ^Z it, then do a ps and you will see what I mean. Static binaries will not only start up much more quickly then dynamic binaries, they actually eat *less* memory if you are running a whole bunch of them independantly (independantly exec'd). Make fits this description to a T. Normally I would argue against making things static, I definitely do *NOT* agree with the 'system recovery' reasoning for making 'make' static. But I do agree that static is much better with regard to all the fork/exec'ing make does. I think making 'make' static is a very good idea. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message