Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:56:27 -0700 From: Gary Kline <kline@tao.thought.org> To: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Idea: static builds Message-ID: <20071006225627.GB66159@thought.org> In-Reply-To: <470806B0.50906@u.washington.edu> References: <20071004190304.GA9491@hades.panopticon> <op.tzslm2n29aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> <470806B0.50906@u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:05:36PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > Jeremy Messenger wrote: > >On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:03:04 -0500, Dmitry Marakasov > ><amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> wrote: > > > >>Hi! > >> > >>I just have an idea that may be useful: static port builds. This can > >>help produce packages without any depends, which may be useful > >>sometimes. > >> > >>Implementation seem pretty straightfoward to me: > >>- Introduce STATIC_BUILD variable that changes usual build behavior > >>- Process LIB_DEPENDS in a different way: check .a instead of .so.*, and > >>fail if .a is missing, and .so is present (i.e. needed static lib is not > >>available at all), don't add library ports to package depends > >>- Add -static to CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS > >> > >>Any comments? I will try to experiment with this for now. > > > >How do you deal with the security? It will be required for all ports > >that depend on a port to be rebuild, so bump the PORTREVISION will be > >need. But what about for non-static that don't need to be bump? A > >solution for that might be need too. > > > >I have no object with static build as long as it is flexible and > >optional (disable/enable). > > > >Cheers, > >Mezz > > > > > Static, built upon static, built upon static would be a bad thing to > watch out for too I'd think... > Am I wrong? I would allow the shells to be built statically, and perhaps most or all of /bin. Hm. And a few other necessary utilities. Things-X aren't essentials. But vi is. ed still gives me nightmares![*] Wasn't the reason for NON-static builds mostly to save-disc-space??? Whatever, having ports that build statically-- things that won't bomb if libfoo.so.3 is missing-- having this seeems like the best idea in years! How much hacking to the Makefles is it? gary > -Garrett > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" [*] for the humor-impaired: Joke. -- Gary Kline kline@thought.org www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071006225627.GB66159>