On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:30:29PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : 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? > > I thought you were one of the folks making this argument when we last > changed the FILE structure and related hangers on.
Hum, I don't recall having that position against static binaries. -- -- 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]"
