On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:07:00 +0200 Roman Zimmermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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). In your test case. With USE=static or when checking the whole tree you'd almost definitely get more packages needing it. Note that I'm not saying that there shouldn't be another way to disable building/installing static libs or that the general message of static builds being irrelevant in many cases is wrong, just that the claim of "only 2 packages needing it" is bogus. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
