On Jan 12, 2018, at 08:14, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2018, at 8:49 (-0500), Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On Jan 11, 2018, at 11:31, Vincent Habchi wrote:
>>
>>> Alternatively to what Ryan just mentioned, you can statically link the
>>> executable, which means that you embed all the code the executable and its
>>> dependencies need into the main code. This result in a bigger executable
>>> (more code) but less bloated than a full install with has a full-blown copy
>>> of all librairies.
>>>
>>> In order to do that, you can link against static archives (.a files) rather
>>> than dylibs.
>>
>> We don't want ports to link to static libraries if linking to dynamic
>> libraries is a viable alternative.
>
> Then I guess I shouldn't bother submitting an as-static-as-possible bash
> build variant, which is necessary if one wants a safe /bin/{bash,sh} on OS
> versions Apple didn't update for ShellShock. It's a bit ugly anyway...
If you're suggesting that with this variant you would build bash with MacPorts
and then replace /bin/bash with it, then no, that would not be something I
would necessarily advocate having in MacPorts.
