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