On 01/05/07, Peter Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone care about static libs except for maybe really really low
> level stuff?
They are useful for rescue operations and whatnot, when a LiveCD or
similar is not handy; or perhaps when the computer cannot boot from an
alternative medium
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
Peter Gordon wrote:
> Back when I used Gentoo (mid-2003 through Nov. 2005), I remember there
> being a "-static" flag that could be set. I don't remember if that was
> in FEATURES or USE though; and not all ebuilds honored it. :| Is there
> similar functionality in modern Portage?
As was explaine
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 23:50 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Open Question part:
>
> Since I don't have any thing other than Gentoo : does anyone know how
> other distros handle static libs in their -dev packages?
Fedora's policy [1] is to only include static libraries when absolutely
necessary, such
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:07:00 +0200
Roman Zimmermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
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 abo
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:07:00 +0200
Roman Zimmermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 (r
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 b
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 tr
Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Since I don't have any thing other than Gentoo : does anyone know how
> other distros handle static libs in their -dev packages? Does anyone
> care about static libs except for maybe really really low level stuff?
Anyone who wants to build a static binary wants the static lib
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 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
>>>
On Sun, 2007-29-04 at 20:36 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:31:52 +0200
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An alternative that doesn't rely on autotools would be using
> > INSTALL_MASK.
>
> Doesn't solve the "packages take twice as long to compile as they
> should
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:31:52 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An alternative that doesn't rely on autotools would be using
> INSTALL_MASK.
Doesn't solve the "packages take twice as long to compile as they
should" issue.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signatur
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:04:07 +0200
Roman Zimmermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 avoi
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 ex
Roman Zimmermann wrote:
> 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)?
I wonder why you call this an ugly hack? It seems to me everyone who
wishes to avoid
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?
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:50:58 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> > t
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) inst
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 sta
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
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/
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
