Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:56:54 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, peterjeremy@optushome.com.au, alfred@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, deischen@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, yar@comp.chem.msu.su Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h Message-ID: <20070828005654.GA50401@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20070824.213615.146406398.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708241819220.13181@sea.ntplx.net> <20070824.172212.74696955.imp@bsdimp.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708242252520.15344@sea.ntplx.net> <20070824.213615.146406398.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:36:15PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708242252520.15344@sea.ntplx.net> > Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> writes: > : I guess the build system should be more tolerant of this, but > : there are bound to be problems regardless. I don't see why > : the install tools can't also either have their own set of > : libraries (utilizing LD_LIBRARY_PATH) or be built static. > > There's much resistance to building everything that the build system > might be used being build static. It adds too much time and > complexity to the build system, the opponents say. I've never heard an argument against building these bits static. What's the issue? -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070828005654.GA50401>