On 13/10/16 03:37 AM, Tobias Droste wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 12. Oktober 2016, 11:53:50 CEST schrieb Emil Velikov:
>> There's a small related gotcha: as-is at build time we get the
>> different codepaths thus, as people build against shared LLVM (hello
>> Archlinux, I'm looking at you) and update their LLVM without
>> rebuilding mesa (Arch I'm looking at you again) things go funny.
What exactly happened there? LLVM upstream generates shared libraries
named libLLVM-<major>.<minor>.so*, so it shouldn't be possible for a
simple LLVM package update to break Mesa, unless Arch did something
>> Tl;Dr; We really want to enable static linking by default and prod
>> distros to use it.
> I'm all in favor of statically linking LLVM (that's the way I'm doing this on
> my pc).
> I think the only reason this is not done is because people (also here on the
> list) don't want any static linkg of external libraries because of size or
> So changing the default to static is easy, but I doubt it will make everyone
> happy ;-)
Indeed, it'd probably make many distro packagers unhappy, because
they'll just have to re-enable shared linking, because packaging
policies generally strongly discourage if not outright forbid static
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
mesa-dev mailing list