Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:57:58 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de>, Steve Price <steve@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ksh93 Message-ID: <20010228065758.A29047@hamlet.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <20010227162104.A7892@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.org on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:21:04PM -0800 References: <200102260514.f1Q5EHJ96328@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010226215311.A44937@spawn.nectar.com> <20010227154226.A36915@kemoauc.mips.inka.de> <20010227162104.A7892@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:21:04PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 03:42:26PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > > > I notice that this installs the Korn shell as a static binary. > ... > > +.if defined(WANT_STATIC) > > +MAKE_ARGS+= LDFLAGS=-static > > +.endif > > I am very against this. It is not a bug for ksh93 to be built > statically, but the bug is in those shells that are built dynamically > in /usr/ports/shells/. Fix the right bug. What do you suggest? That all shells be linked and installed statically? Is there something that makes shells special, or do you want all ports built static by default? I would like it if all the shells in ports/shells were linked dynamic by default, but had knobs for getting static versions. Then one can have WANT_STATIC in /etc/make.conf (man, we really need a separate make.conf-type file just for ports). > P.S. What in the world is everyone's aversion to static binaries?? Personally I like to keep static versions of my favorite shell(s) installed in /bin. However, ksh93 supports dynamic loading of commands. This feature is, of course, unavailable if ksh93 is statically linked. In the future I expect to see ksh-foo ports in the same fashion that we have py-* and p5-* ports. But if ksh93 itself is static by default, such ports could only be used after a recompile. Statically linked applications are also a bit of a pain when new functionality is introduced into libc, either directly or indirectly, e.g. SOCKS or nsswitch. That doesn't mean that static linking is never appropriate, I just think that it shouldn't be the default for most people. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010228065758.A29047>