Interesting reading the responses to this from over the weekend, and I think that Stuart Barkley's comment below strikes the biggest chord with me:
> Today, I probably wouldn't fight using dynamic linking. I do wish > things would continue to provide static libraries unless there are > specific reasons static libraries won't work. I would like to see > libc remain fully functional when statically linked. I would like > documentation about functionality lost when statically linking with > libc. That's kind of my position too - for 99.9% of cases I (like everyone else) link dynamicly. But for those 0.1% of cases where static linking is a useful and good idea then I want to be able to do so - and I worry that we are heading for a situation where it's not going to be possible to link staticly with things in ports. If we had a standardised know to define then I could have submitted a pr including a patch and that might have been acccepted - after all the intent of removing statics was to prevent people linking with them without knowing, so if they have to explicitly enable ot then I assume that would be acceptable. -pete. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
