Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 19:23:43 -0700 From: Gary Kline <kline@tao.thought.org> To: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Gary Kline <kline@tao.thought.org> Subject: Re: Idea: static builds Message-ID: <20071007022343.GC67456@thought.org> In-Reply-To: <470833D0.3000903@u.washington.edu> References: <20071004190304.GA9491@hades.panopticon> <op.tzslm2n29aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> <470806B0.50906@u.washington.edu> <20071006225627.GB66159@thought.org> <470833D0.3000903@u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:18:08PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Gary Kline wrote:
> >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
> >>
> >
> >[*] for the humor-impaired: Joke.
> >
>
> None whatsoever really. I think it just involves making a few
> changes to /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf, if you want to make the
> modification just for yourself (I don't do that though, so I'm not sure.
> Just OTOH rememberances).
pkgtools.conf?:: Save me! I've onlytouched that to prevent
things like OO.o from updating and stuff. I'm pretty sure it's
flexible enough to do just "zsh".... And vi, of course.
I'll wait on this. Would really appreciate others' feedback,
tho.
gary
> -Garrett
--
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?20071007022343.GC67456>