Thomas Schwinge, le Wed 04 Apr 2012 22:46:34 +0200, a écrit : > > > I'm still open to being convinced otherwise. > > > > Well, the thing is: we need to patch a fair number of applications > > then (Xorg, gdb, ...) > > But that's already mostly it, isn't it?
Possibly. We might just have commit access to most of these already actually. > > since the dependency used to be brought in > > automatically (even explicitly, in the case of libc.a), so it looked > > like it was a libc-provided feature. > > > > > But expressing your actual dependencies is a good thing, and > > > IMHO it makes sense to have "average" programs just using POSIXy > > > interfaces > > > depend only on -lc and Hurdish programs explicitly depend on what they > > > use. > > What is a clean way so that we could remove it from the static libc.a's > ``GROUP ( libcrt.a libmachuser.a libhurduser.a )''? libcrt.a does need > it itself after all. So I guess in the -static case we'll (have to) > continue to link it in, unless we'd apply some medium-sized surgery? I'd say have to continue link it in. > A patch that I just used to build Hurd in the new setting (the *.static > case just for uniformity, as just discussed): That seems reasonable to me. Samuel
