Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:51:05 -0500 From: Bill Vermillion <bv@wjv.com> To: Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Subject: Re: 6.2 buildworld fails with NO_SHARED Message-ID: <20070128025105.GA50787@wjv.com> In-Reply-To: <790a9fff0701271723k3e7e57bfncc0addbfd3532f46@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070126161022.GB29530@wjv.com> <20070126171552.GA24490@dan.emsphone.com> <20070127235408.GA50433@wjv.com> <790a9fff0701271723k3e7e57bfncc0addbfd3532f46@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Deep in the forest in the dark of night on Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 19:23 with a cackle and an evil grin Scot Hetzel cast another eye of newt into the brew and chanted: > On 1/27/07, Bill Vermillion <bv@wjv.com> wrote: > >No real problem there, but that brings up another question. > >If - as documented in make.conf(5) - I put use the variable > >NO_DYNAMIC_ROOT it says "set this is you do not want to link > >/bin and /sbin dynamically". > > > >Would that be the way to build statics in /bin and /sbin > >instead of NO_SHARED. > > > I forgot about that option. Using NO_DYNAMIC_ROOT would be the proper > way to build /bin and /sbin statically, and still have the rest > compied dynamically. > > Scot > -- > DISCLAIMER: > No electrons were mamed while sending this message. Only > slightly bruised. Thanks for confirming that - the NO_DYNAMIC_ROOT not 'no electonrs were harmed :-) Now - I wonder what should be done with the failures encountered when NO_SHARED is used. I suspect it should be cleaned up, if for no reason than to keep messages/queries such as mine from shwoing up. Thanks again. Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070128025105.GA50787>