[gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Roman Zimmermann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 978 bytes --]

I'm now using gentoo with EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-static" for a while and it 
seems quite stable. Sometimes I encounter a package that won't build with 
this setting, but that's a rare occasion. At the moment this packages are for 
me:
x11-libs/libXxf86vm
sys-devel/gdb-6.6
dev-libs/jrtplib-3.5.2
dev-libs/libpcre
sys-apps/ed
I see that this way to disable static libraries is not perfect. 

Disabling static linking has - for me - before all the advantage of reducing 
size for most packages - for some packages up to 50%.

So I'm curious why (nearly?) all ebuilds build static _and_ dynamic libraries?
I understand that the current way is pretty hassle-free. But from my 
perspective a (possibly officialy unsupported) way to make things easier for 
people who wan't the choice would be fine.

I'm sorry if there has been such a discussion already. Also I don't want to 
start a flame about what is the better choice (static or dynamic).

regards
Roman

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Jakub Moc]

On 4/29/07, Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm now using gentoo with EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-static" for a while and it
> seems quite stable. Sometimes I encounter a package that won't build with
> this setting, but that's a rare occasion. At the moment this packages are for
> me:
> dev-libs/libpcre

Disabling static libs in libpcre makes sys-apps/grep w/ USE=pcre bomb
out on compile... Just an example why you should always install both
of them.

> Disabling static linking has - for me - before all the advantage of reducing
> size for most packages - for some packages up to 50%.
>
> So I'm curious why (nearly?) all ebuilds build static _and_ dynamic libraries?
> I understand that the current way is pretty hassle-free. But from my
> perspective a (possibly officialy unsupported) way to make things easier for
> people who wan't the choice would be fine.

See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165629,
http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=116026024223024&w=2 etc.

--
Jakub Moc
Email: jakub.moc@gmail.com
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 667 bytes --]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:54:12 +0200
"Jakub Moc" <jakub.moc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/29/07, Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm now using gentoo with EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-static" for a
> > while and it seems quite stable. Sometimes I encounter a package
> > that won't build with this setting, but that's a rare occasion. At
> > the moment this packages are for me:
> > dev-libs/libpcre
> 
> Disabling static libs in libpcre makes sys-apps/grep w/ USE=pcre bomb
> out on compile... Just an example why you should always install both
> of them.

No, that's an example of why you should sometimes install both.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Roman Zimmermann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1370 bytes --]

Am Sonntag 29 April 2007 12:36 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:54:12 +0200
>
> "Jakub Moc" <jakub.moc@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/29/07, Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm now using gentoo with EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-static" for a
> > > while and it seems quite stable. Sometimes I encounter a package
> > > that won't build with this setting, but that's a rare occasion. At
> > > the moment this packages are for me:
> > > dev-libs/libpcre
> >
> > Disabling static libs in libpcre makes sys-apps/grep w/ USE=pcre bomb
> > out on compile... Just an example why you should always install both
> > of them.
>
> No, that's an example of why you should sometimes install both.

These are 5 packages out of 845 on my system. For those with version number it 
is only a compile time error, when make errornously tries to build a static 
target. Those without number are needed static by another package or don't 
like --disable-static (sys-apps/ed). That leaves 2 out of 845.
So I'm with Ciaran here: It works for almost all packages and makes at least 
some difference. Maybe enough to (really) give the users the choice (without 
the ugly EXTRA_ECONF-hack)?

Those links Jakub posted are interesting, but I don't find an explanation why 
this decission was made. Maybe you have a link to that discussion too?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 792 bytes --]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:43:29 +0200
Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@gmail.com> wrote:

> Those links Jakub posted are interesting, but I don't find an
> explanation why this decission was made. Maybe you have a link to
> that discussion too?

What decision? That USE=static shouldn't be used for (not) installing
static libraries is simply because the flag is used to control how
(parts of) a package should be linked and global flags
shouldn't be used for completely different purposes. That's been the
case since the beginning, so I doubt you'll find any dicussion about it.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 818 bytes --]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:50:58 +0200
Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:43:29 +0200
> Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Those links Jakub posted are interesting, but I don't find an
> > explanation why this decission was made. Maybe you have a link to
> > that discussion too?
> 
> What decision? That USE=static shouldn't be used for (not) installing
> static libraries is simply because the flag is used to control how
> (parts of) a package should be linked and global flags
> shouldn't be used for completely different purposes. That's been the
> case since the beginning, so I doubt you'll find any dicussion about
> it.

The more interesting question is why static libraries are built and
installed for most packages at all.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Roman Zimmermann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1200 bytes --]

Am Sonntag 29 April 2007 19:50 schrieb Marius Mauch:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:43:29 +0200
>
> Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Those links Jakub posted are interesting, but I don't find an
> > explanation why this decission was made. Maybe you have a link to
> > that discussion too?
>
> What decision? That USE=static shouldn't be used for (not) installing
> static libraries is simply because the flag is used to control how
> (parts of) a package should be linked and global flags
> shouldn't be used for completely different purposes. That's been the
> case since the beginning, so I doubt you'll find any dicussion about it.
>

There is also the part about: "packages that can install static and shared 
libraries should always be installing them." 
[http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=116026024223024&w=2]
Which means either that this statement was meant for another context (and not 
in such a general meaning) or it says that there shouldn't/won't be a way to 
change this behavior.
In case 1 this misses the point. (As Ciaran pointed out.) Since I was not 
specifically talking about the 'static' useflag.
For case 2 I'm very interested in the reason.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[paul kölle]

Roman Zimmermann wrote:

> So I'm with Ciaran here: It works for almost all packages and makes at least 
> some difference. Maybe enough to (really) give the users the choice (without 
> the ugly EXTRA_ECONF-hack)?
I wonder why you call this an ugly hack? It seems to me everyone who
wishes to avoid installing static libs is able to do so with a simple
variable. Having such a feature exposed to the mainstream crowd without
proper support by developers (testing and such) will not do any good.

cheers
 Paul

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Roman Zimmermann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 999 bytes --]

Am Sonntag 29 April 2007 20:46 schrieb paul kölle:
> Roman Zimmermann wrote:
> > (without the ugly EXTRA_ECONF-hack)?
>
> I wonder why you call this an ugly hack? It seems to me everyone who
> wishes to avoid installing static libs is able to do so with a simple
> variable. Having such a feature exposed to the mainstream crowd without
> proper support by developers (testing and such) will not do any good.
>

This is an ugly code since it's relies on econf which is - as an 
implementation detail - only used for packages with ./configure. (according 
to the ebuild howto). So it's not really a feature but a lucky assumption 
that most packages know what to do with "./configure --disable-static".
Additionally handling exceptions with package.env can be a pain. It is much 
less supported by tools than package.use or .keywords.

You are right that it would be wrong to expose this feature. But having it 
readily available and exposing it are two different sorts of things.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1259 bytes --]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:04:07 +0200
Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@gmail.com> wrote:

> Am Sonntag 29 April 2007 20:46 schrieb paul kölle:
> > Roman Zimmermann wrote:
> > > (without the ugly EXTRA_ECONF-hack)?
> >
> > I wonder why you call this an ugly hack? It seems to me everyone who
> > wishes to avoid installing static libs is able to do so with a
> > simple variable. Having such a feature exposed to the mainstream
> > crowd without proper support by developers (testing and such) will
> > not do any good.
> >
> 
> This is an ugly code since it's relies on econf which is - as an 
> implementation detail - only used for packages with ./configure.
> (according to the ebuild howto). So it's not really a feature but a
> lucky assumption that most packages know what to do with "./configure
> --disable-static". Additionally handling exceptions with package.env
> can be a pain. It is much less supported by tools than package.use
> or .keywords.

An alternative that doesn't rely on autotools would be using
INSTALL_MASK.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 269 bytes --]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:31:52 +0200
Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:
> An alternative that doesn't rely on autotools would be using
> INSTALL_MASK.

Doesn't solve the "packages take twice as long to compile as they
should" issue.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 619 bytes --]

On Sun, 2007-29-04 at 20:36 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:31:52 +0200
> Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > An alternative that doesn't rely on autotools would be using
> > INSTALL_MASK.
> 
> Doesn't solve the "packages take twice as long to compile as they
> should" issue.

A combination of passing --disable-static to econf and INSTALL_MASK
should do it. That said, having a feature/use flag to enable static
library might not be such a good idea (and disable it on packages where
static libraries are needed).

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Rémi Cardona]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:54:12 +0200
> "Jakub Moc" <jakub.moc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/29/07, Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm now using gentoo with EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-static" for a
>>> while and it seems quite stable. Sometimes I encounter a package
>>> that won't build with this setting, but that's a rare occasion. At
>>> the moment this packages are for me:
>>> dev-libs/libpcre
>> Disabling static libs in libpcre makes sys-apps/grep w/ USE=pcre bomb
>> out on compile... Just an example why you should always install both
>> of them.
> 
> No, that's an example of why you should sometimes install both.
> 

Open Question part:

Since I don't have any thing other than Gentoo : does anyone know how
other distros handle static libs in their -dev packages? Does anyone
care about static libs except for maybe really really low level stuff?

My Opinion part:

I'd definitely would like to see them leave my system for good as I have
no use for 99% of them whatsoever.

Open Question part:

Could some FEATURE disable static libs building by default in desktop
profiles, with some (like the 5 packages Roman pointed out) using
something like a RESTRICT?

(These questions are really not meant to be inflammatory and they are
honest questions as I'm learning the trade here. Yet, if I'm way off,
please let me know :) )

Cheers,

Rémi
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 555 bytes --]

Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Since I don't have any thing other than Gentoo : does anyone know how
> other distros handle static libs in their -dev packages? Does anyone
> care about static libs except for maybe really really low level stuff?

Anyone who wants to build a static binary wants the static libs. Given
the difficulty in universally enabling or disabling their builds because
of build-system differences, building them and tossing them in the trash
with INSTALL_MASK, as Marius suggested, seems like the best way to go.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 474 bytes --]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:56:57 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Anyone who wants to build a static binary wants the static libs. Given
> the difficulty in universally enabling or disabling their builds
> because of build-system differences, building them and tossing them
> in the trash with INSTALL_MASK, as Marius suggested, seems like the
> best way to go.

The best way to go or the only viable short term solution?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Roman Zimmermann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1582 bytes --]

Am Montag 30 April 2007 00:11 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:56:57 -0700
>
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Anyone who wants to build a static binary wants the static libs. Given
> > the difficulty in universally enabling or disabling their builds
> > because of build-system differences, building them and tossing them
> > in the trash with INSTALL_MASK, as Marius suggested, seems like the
> > best way to go.
>
> The best way to go or the only viable short term solution?

That's the point! Universally disabling static builds can't be a longterm 
solution. The only sane way to do this is on a per ebuild basis. Since only 
the ebuild "knows" whats the right way to disable static libs or whether this 
package supports it at all.
As of now most packages use or ignore --disable-static in a proper way, but 
since GNU autotools are not that popular  anymore the "ignore" part of the 
tree is inclined to grow.
This method has the advantage that it either fails at compile time or works 
fine. Something gives me the feeling that INSTALL_MASK will break things 
after installation and silently, which is a bad thing. So no solution here.

And as it was pointed out before. Static builds are not needed most of the 
time. There is only 2 packages that actually need the static libraries. The 
rest fails due to upstream bugs in the configure/makefile 
(recognizing --disable-static but only applying it partially).

So --disable-static seems to me like the only 
half-sane-partial-short-time-solution.

cheers

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 961 bytes --]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:07:00 +0200
Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@gmail.com> wrote:

> And as it was pointed out before. Static builds are not needed most
> of the time. There is only 2 packages that actually need the static
> libraries. The rest fails due to upstream bugs in the
> configure/makefile (recognizing --disable-static but only applying it
> partially).

In your test case. With USE=static or when checking the whole tree you'd
almost definitely get more packages needing it. Note that I'm not
saying that there shouldn't be another way to disable
building/installing static libs or that the general message of static
builds being irrelevant in many cases is wrong, just that the claim of
"only 2 packages needing it" is bogus.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Roman Zimmermann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 651 bytes --]

Am Montag 30 April 2007 05:35 schrieb Marius Mauch:
> [snip]
> builds being irrelevant in many cases is wrong, just that the claim of
> "only 2 packages needing it" is bogus.

Surely this was meant in the context of the previous thread: 2 out of 845 
packages on my system would be right. That's about 0,237%. Either way this is 
a small percentage to argue that 100% should be built with static libs.
(And there is still the question whether those two would really _need_ those 
static libs or it's just due to the deficiency of the EXTRA_ECONF-method.)

When I have time I will take a look on how some other distributions handle 
this.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Duncan]

Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@gmail.com> posted
200704300928.20427.mereandor@gmail.com, excerpted below, on  Mon, 30 Apr
2007 09:28:16 +0200:

> Am Montag 30 April 2007 05:35 schrieb Marius Mauch:
>> [snip]
>> builds being irrelevant in many cases is wrong, just that the claim of
>> "only 2 packages needing it" is bogus.
> 
> Surely this was meant in the context of the previous thread: 2 out of
> 845 packages on my system would be right. That's about 0,237%. Either
> way this is a small percentage to argue that 100% should be built with
> static libs. (And there is still the question whether those two would
> really _need_ those static libs or it's just due to the deficiency of
> the EXTRA_ECONF-method.)
> 
> When I have time I will take a look on how some other distributions
> handle this.

What <most> other distributions (which are binary) do doesn't apply, 
because they aren't designed for the end-user to be constantly compiling 
stuff as is assumed on Gentoo.  Most other distributions can (and 
probably do) split most libraries into main-package and -dev package, the 
-dev version containing headers and likely static versions of the 
libraries, while the dynamically linked binaries, config, etc, is in the 
main package.

That makes no sense for an end-user compiled distribution, where if a 
library is installed, it's assumed it will be used, and to use it headers 
and the like must be installed as well.  Statically linked library 
binaries won't always be needed, true, but IMO the same idea should apply 
-- they should be installed by default as it'll be impossible to link 
something statically against them if they aren't, and where end-user 
compiling must be assumed, it's entirely reasonable to assume those same 
end-users may wish some of those compilations to be statically built.

Sure, if it's not too much of a hassle, give those users a USE flag 
(since we're talking per-package enabling), that can of course be set 
globally in make.conf if desired, and that defaults to installing static 
as well as dynamic for most profiles.  Embedded may wish to disable it by 
default, and users may do so if desired, but in the general case, the 
static libs should be there by default just in case.  However, if it's 
too much hassle, having both installed is the sane default, and there's 
certainly INSTALL_MASK for those such as embedded that might be tight-up 
on space or the required additional compiling resources.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Kevin F. Quinn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1273 bytes --]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:07:00 +0200
Roman Zimmermann <mereandor@gmail.com> wrote:

> Am Montag 30 April 2007 00:11 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:56:57 -0700
> >
> > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Anyone who wants to build a static binary wants the static libs.
> > > Given the difficulty in universally enabling or disabling their
> > > builds because of build-system differences, building them and
> > > tossing them in the trash with INSTALL_MASK, as Marius suggested,
> > > seems like the best way to go.
> >
> > The best way to go or the only viable short term solution?

Best way to go, IMO.

> That's the point! Universally disabling static builds can't be a
> longterm solution. The only sane way to do this is on a per ebuild
> basis.

The thing about static libraries, is that the ebuild that creates them
doesn't know whether anything else will want to use them.  It may be
that in practice, most libraries are never used in their static form -
but the point is that the ebuild doesn't know enough information to
make the decision.

However, with INSTALL_MASK, the user makes the decision never to have
static binaries, and thus gets a system free of static libraries.

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Peter Gordon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2093 bytes --]

On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 23:50 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Open Question part:
> 
> Since I don't have any thing other than Gentoo : does anyone know how
> other distros handle static libs in their -dev packages?

Fedora's policy [1] is to only include static libraries when absolutely
necessary, such as with libpci or other libraries that ship *only*
static incarnations (though in these cases the packager is heavily
encouraged to pester the upstream developer(s) about building a shared
library as well); or for specific exceptions where full and satisfactory
reason is given for the inclusion of static libraries (such as, perhaps,
low-level rescue utilities like grub and others, though they generally
then need to explicitly be in a foo-static subpackage when built). All
such cases need to be approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering
Committee (FESCo).


> Does anyone care about static libs except for maybe really really low
> level stuff?
They are useful for rescue operations and whatnot, when a LiveCD or
similar is not handy; or perhaps when the computer cannot boot from an
alternative medium. That's the only major benefit I see of them. 


> My Opinion part:
> 
> I'd definitely would like to see them leave my system for good as I have
> no use for 99% of them whatsoever.
++


> Open Question part:
> 
> Could some FEATURE disable static libs building by default in desktop
> profiles, with some (like the 5 packages Roman pointed out) using
> something like a RESTRICT?
> 
Back when I used Gentoo (mid-2003 through Nov. 2005), I remember there
being a "-static" flag that could be set. I don't remember if that was
in FEATURES or USE though; and not all ebuilds honored it. :| Is there
similar functionality in modern Portage? 


[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
-- 
Peter Gordon (codergeek42) / FSF & EFF Member
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
  DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 805 bytes --]

Peter Gordon wrote:
> Back when I used Gentoo (mid-2003 through Nov. 2005), I remember there
> being a "-static" flag that could be set. I don't remember if that was
> in FEATURES or USE though; and not all ebuilds honored it. :| Is there
> similar functionality in modern Portage? 

As was explained elsewhere in this thread by Marius, that's not what the
static flag controls.

For your convenience:

Marius Mauch wrote:
> What decision? That USE=static shouldn't be used for (not) installing
> static libraries is simply because the flag is used to control how
> (parts of) a package should be linked and global flags
> shouldn't be used for completely different purposes. That's been the
> case since the beginning, so I doubt you'll find any dicussion about it.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Roman Zimmermann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1013 bytes --]

Am Montag 30 April 2007 21:00 schrieb Kevin F. Quinn:
> The thing about static libraries, is that the ebuild that creates them
> doesn't know whether anything else will want to use them.  It may be
> that in practice, most libraries are never used in their static form -
> but the point is that the ebuild doesn't know enough information to
> make the decision.

That's true for now, but it won't anymore when use dependencies are 
implemented. Then a corresponding useflag could be used to opt-in for static 
builds.
 
> However, with INSTALL_MASK, the user makes the decision never to have
> static binaries, and thus gets a system free of static libraries.

Except the little detail that INSTALL_MASK definately breaks things. I tried 
it yesterday.
The reason is that packages that build static libs (though --disable-static is 
set) will depend on other static libs. With INSTALL_MASK in place those 
static libs are never installed. Hence the build fails.
So it is not a working option.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

[Radoslaw Stachowiak]

On 01/05/07, Peter Gordon <codergeek42@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Does anyone care about static libs except for maybe really really low
> > level stuff?
> They are useful for rescue operations and whatnot, when a LiveCD or
> similar is not handy; or perhaps when the computer cannot boot from an
> alternative medium. That's the only major benefit I see of them.

They are also very often used in chrooted environments.

-- 
radoslaw.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list