Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Kumba wrote: what should we call it? Vote on this! If users have votes ... Then I'd vote for gentoo-project. It seems to me that politics covers just a part of all possible non-technical topics. Depends on how you define politics though. Roman pgpUqVXAIRKN3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Increasing contributions and interest via personal project aggregation
Am Mittwoch 09 Mai 2007 07:44 schrieb Donnie Berkholz: I'm sure I'm not the only one with a number of projects I'll never get to, but I'd really like them to happen anyway. I suggest we create some sort of page that aggregates all of these personal projects together, so anyone can browse through them and look for stuff that sounds fun. Hi! I really like that idea. Maybe I'd do more than the occasional ebuild in bugzilla if it already was implemented ;) I'd like to see such a thing - maybe not only for gentoo related stuff but for linux/programming in general. greets pgppcnJ9Nbz7C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries
Am Montag 30 April 2007 21:00 schrieb Kevin F. Quinn: The thing about static libraries, is that the ebuild that creates them doesn't know whether anything else will want to use them. It may be that in practice, most libraries are never used in their static form - but the point is that the ebuild doesn't know enough information to make the decision. That's true for now, but it won't anymore when use dependencies are implemented. Then a corresponding useflag could be used to opt-in for static builds. However, with INSTALL_MASK, the user makes the decision never to have static binaries, and thus gets a system free of static libraries. Except the little detail that INSTALL_MASK definately breaks things. I tried it yesterday. The reason is that packages that build static libs (though --disable-static is set) will depend on other static libs. With INSTALL_MASK in place those static libs are never installed. Hence the build fails. So it is not a working option. pgpSSbjojvOsK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries
Am Montag 30 April 2007 05:35 schrieb Marius Mauch: [snip] builds being irrelevant in many cases is wrong, just that the claim of only 2 packages needing it is bogus. Surely this was meant in the context of the previous thread: 2 out of 845 packages on my system would be right. That's about 0,237%. Either way this is a small percentage to argue that 100% should be built with static libs. (And there is still the question whether those two would really _need_ those static libs or it's just due to the deficiency of the EXTRA_ECONF-method.) When I have time I will take a look on how some other distributions handle this. pgpRKPgP4NiOB.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries
I'm now using gentoo with EXTRA_ECONF=--disable-static for a while and it seems quite stable. Sometimes I encounter a package that won't build with this setting, but that's a rare occasion. At the moment this packages are for me: x11-libs/libXxf86vm sys-devel/gdb-6.6 dev-libs/jrtplib-3.5.2 dev-libs/libpcre sys-apps/ed I see that this way to disable static libraries is not perfect. Disabling static linking has - for me - before all the advantage of reducing size for most packages - for some packages up to 50%. So I'm curious why (nearly?) all ebuilds build static _and_ dynamic libraries? I understand that the current way is pretty hassle-free. But from my perspective a (possibly officialy unsupported) way to make things easier for people who wan't the choice would be fine. I'm sorry if there has been such a discussion already. Also I don't want to start a flame about what is the better choice (static or dynamic). regards Roman pgpXU7XoTHJaM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries
Am Sonntag 29 April 2007 12:36 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:54:12 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/29/07, Roman Zimmermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm now using gentoo with EXTRA_ECONF=--disable-static for a while and it seems quite stable. Sometimes I encounter a package that won't build with this setting, but that's a rare occasion. At the moment this packages are for me: dev-libs/libpcre Disabling static libs in libpcre makes sys-apps/grep w/ USE=pcre bomb out on compile... Just an example why you should always install both of them. No, that's an example of why you should sometimes install both. These are 5 packages out of 845 on my system. For those with version number it is only a compile time error, when make errornously tries to build a static target. Those without number are needed static by another package or don't like --disable-static (sys-apps/ed). That leaves 2 out of 845. So I'm with Ciaran here: It works for almost all packages and makes at least some difference. Maybe enough to (really) give the users the choice (without the ugly EXTRA_ECONF-hack)? Those links Jakub posted are interesting, but I don't find an explanation why this decission was made. Maybe you have a link to that discussion too? pgptEfQSM1KOK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries
Am Sonntag 29 April 2007 19:50 schrieb Marius Mauch: On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:43:29 +0200 Roman Zimmermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those links Jakub posted are interesting, but I don't find an explanation why this decission was made. Maybe you have a link to that discussion too? What decision? That USE=static shouldn't be used for (not) installing static libraries is simply because the flag is used to control how (parts of) a package should be linked and global flags shouldn't be used for completely different purposes. That's been the case since the beginning, so I doubt you'll find any dicussion about it. There is also the part about: packages that can install static and shared libraries should always be installing them. [http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-devm=116026024223024w=2] Which means either that this statement was meant for another context (and not in such a general meaning) or it says that there shouldn't/won't be a way to change this behavior. In case 1 this misses the point. (As Ciaran pointed out.) Since I was not specifically talking about the 'static' useflag. For case 2 I'm very interested in the reason. pgpnVRT4W10cb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries
Am Sonntag 29 April 2007 20:46 schrieb paul kölle: Roman Zimmermann wrote: (without the ugly EXTRA_ECONF-hack)? I wonder why you call this an ugly hack? It seems to me everyone who wishes to avoid installing static libs is able to do so with a simple variable. Having such a feature exposed to the mainstream crowd without proper support by developers (testing and such) will not do any good. This is an ugly code since it's relies on econf which is - as an implementation detail - only used for packages with ./configure. (according to the ebuild howto). So it's not really a feature but a lucky assumption that most packages know what to do with ./configure --disable-static. Additionally handling exceptions with package.env can be a pain. It is much less supported by tools than package.use or .keywords. You are right that it would be wrong to expose this feature. But having it readily available and exposing it are two different sorts of things. pgpoGB49S0MSm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries
Am Montag 30 April 2007 00:11 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:56:57 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone who wants to build a static binary wants the static libs. Given the difficulty in universally enabling or disabling their builds because of build-system differences, building them and tossing them in the trash with INSTALL_MASK, as Marius suggested, seems like the best way to go. The best way to go or the only viable short term solution? That's the point! Universally disabling static builds can't be a longterm solution. The only sane way to do this is on a per ebuild basis. Since only the ebuild knows whats the right way to disable static libs or whether this package supports it at all. As of now most packages use or ignore --disable-static in a proper way, but since GNU autotools are not that popular anymore the ignore part of the tree is inclined to grow. This method has the advantage that it either fails at compile time or works fine. Something gives me the feeling that INSTALL_MASK will break things after installation and silently, which is a bad thing. So no solution here. And as it was pointed out before. Static builds are not needed most of the time. There is only 2 packages that actually need the static libraries. The rest fails due to upstream bugs in the configure/makefile (recognizing --disable-static but only applying it partially). So --disable-static seems to me like the only half-sane-partial-short-time-solution. cheers pgpIqS2Q3K9uo.pgp Description: PGP signature
