On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Stanislav Brabec <[email protected]> wrote: > But I would do even one step forward: > In last 12 years I did not need any of system static library instances. > I did, I do not see disabling static libraries as a step forward.
Not that I really really NEEDED it, but it reduced the footprint, boot/link/load time on a single process firmware application to such an amount that static linking was desired. > With exception of bootloader authors, almost nobody else needs static > libraries. > Static linking is a valid approach for embedded use, let's not cripple it more. I think we should build most of what we can build during the compile and install and stage tasks, then reduce what we need in later stages. > That is why I would like to introduce new global default: > --disable-static (via variable, site config or so). > > Only packages that explicitly require or explicitly build the static > library will have them (in -dev or -static sub-package, see above). > Typically libraries should stage the static, so that dependent packages can choose to statically link against them. I would keep the discussing on how to package statics and their corresponding debug info. Regards, -- Leon _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
