On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:07:00 +0200 Roman Zimmermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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? Best way to go, IMO. > 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. The thing about static libraries, is that the ebuild that creates them doesn't know whether anything else will want to use them. It may be that in practice, most libraries are never used in their static form - but the point is that the ebuild doesn't know enough information to make the decision. However, with INSTALL_MASK, the user makes the decision never to have static binaries, and thus gets a system free of static libraries. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
