Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:56:35 +0000 From: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, stuartb@4gh.net Subject: Re: Policy on static linking ? Message-ID: <E1PemlH-000FrZ-AW@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101141802190.46734@freeman.4gh.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Interesting reading the responses to this from over the weekend, and I think that Stuart Barkley's comment below strikes the biggest chord with me: > Today, I probably wouldn't fight using dynamic linking. I do wish > things would continue to provide static libraries unless there are > specific reasons static libraries won't work. I would like to see > libc remain fully functional when statically linked. I would like > documentation about functionality lost when statically linking with > libc. That's kind of my position too - for 99.9% of cases I (like everyone else) link dynamicly. But for those 0.1% of cases where static linking is a useful and good idea then I want to be able to do so - and I worry that we are heading for a situation where it's not going to be possible to link staticly with things in ports. If we had a standardised know to define then I could have submitted a pr including a patch and that might have been acccepted - after all the intent of removing statics was to prevent people linking with them without knowing, so if they have to explicitly enable ot then I assume that would be acceptable. -pete.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1PemlH-000FrZ-AW>