On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 08:13 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 23:48 +0200, GNUtoo wrote: > > Phil Blundell wrote: > > > Or, for SDK purposes, you could even consider ditching the .a > > > libraries altogether for packages that have a .so since virtually > > > nobody is going to be doing static linking in this day and age. > > > > I often do static linking for different reasons: > > *different libc on the target(like with android for instance) > > *debugging(like in the case where all shared libs segfaulted on mips > > +uclibc,I needed a static gdb,a static strace etc...) > > Neither of those are really the kind of use-cases that the SDK is > targeting. If you are doing initial bringup/debug on a particular > target system then you would probably want to use an in-tree build just > as you do today. > > The SDK exists to support casual software development on relatively > stable target platforms, by people who don't wish to build the entire > system from scratch for themselves, and in almost all cases you don't > want to encourage static linking there. > > p. ok thanks for the explanations...I think I have read too fast(lots of mails) (I was thinking that the static libraries were to be removed in the normal in-tree build) Denis.
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
