Victor Duchovni:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:25:06AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Victor Duchovni:
> > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:31:27PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > >
> > > > There is plenty of room for polish, but none of this rocket science,
> > > > just some tedious wacking of the library and program Makefile after
> > > > making some naming and style choices.
> >
> > I do not want to sound ungrateful but it is indeed no rocket science
> > to permanently remove all support for static linking for LINUX (or
> > any platform), meaning the permanent removal of support for older
> > versions of LINUX (or any platform).
>
> There is no permanent removal, all the macros are trivially set
> to values that product static libraries. The "demo" Makefiles
> can build *either* shared or static binaries.
>
> > I would like to maintain my principle that people shall not be
> > forced to run the Latest OS version and the Latest Postfix version
> > only.
> >
> > In other words, we will still have to ship multiple Makfiles.
>
> No, we can run "makedefs shared" to produce a shared-library build
> and "makedefs static" to product a static build.
That was not clear from the patches.
I suppose it will be possible trouble to support "make" in the
top-level directory as before, and let the build scripts make a
sensible choice. If there is no need to expose choices, then don't.
Wietse
