Am Montag 30 April 2007 00:11 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:56:57 -0700 > > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyone who wants to build a static binary wants the static libs. Given > > the difficulty in universally enabling or disabling their builds > > because of build-system differences, building them and tossing them > > in the trash with INSTALL_MASK, as Marius suggested, seems like the > > best way to go. > > The best way to go or the only viable short term solution?
That's the point! Universally disabling static builds can't be a longterm solution. The only sane way to do this is on a per ebuild basis. Since only the ebuild "knows" whats the right way to disable static libs or whether this package supports it at all. As of now most packages use or ignore --disable-static in a proper way, but since GNU autotools are not that popular anymore the "ignore" part of the tree is inclined to grow. This method has the advantage that it either fails at compile time or works fine. Something gives me the feeling that INSTALL_MASK will break things after installation and silently, which is a bad thing. So no solution here. And as it was pointed out before. Static builds are not needed most of the time. There is only 2 packages that actually need the static libraries. The rest fails due to upstream bugs in the configure/makefile (recognizing --disable-static but only applying it partially). So --disable-static seems to me like the only half-sane-partial-short-time-solution. cheers
pgpIqS2Q3K9uo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
