On Friday 21 June 2002 04:28 pm, David O'Brien wrote:
= On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 02:29:33PM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
= > I used to define INTERNALLIB to avoid building and installing the
= > static version, but that is now almost reversed -- only the static
= > will be built and nothing will be installed.
= The old INTERNALLIB knob was confusion and not really used. An
= internal lib is a static lib we create during `make world' because it
= reduces compile times (ie, code that is shared).
= I can think of very few reasons to build a .so, but not a .a. Some
= people do like to build static binaries.
And some people are the opposite. However, for loadable (as in dlopen(3))
plugins, suchs Tcl modules the static libraries are useless at best.
Why can't we have some way to explicitly list what is and what is not
= > Can the future modifications in the share/mk be, please, tested with
= > ports as well as src builds? Thanks!
= src/share/mk is for /usr/src. If /usr/ports can use the bits, that is
= nice. If not ports/Mk/bsd.FOO.mk should be created and used.
By this logic, we don't need to install the bsd.*.mk files at all... I,
however, disagree. I think they are a great development tool, and have
served pretty good so far -- until the very recent and unfortunately
Note, that they are not even called freebsd.*.mk -- to me, the names
implies they are (more or less) consistens among all of the BSDs :-)
Как, Вы разве без шпаги пришли?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message