On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:36:15PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : I guess the build system should be more tolerant of this, but > : there are bound to be problems regardless. I don't see why > : the install tools can't also either have their own set of > : libraries (utilizing LD_LIBRARY_PATH) or be built static. > > There's much resistance to building everything that the build system > might be used being build static. It adds too much time and > complexity to the build system, the opponents say.
I've never heard an argument against building these bits static. What's the issue? -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
