On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 09:52 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > if the lib is meant to be used by other packages, then a static version > should > probably be offered for people who want to build static binaries ... although > atm, the libperl ebuild doesnt actually produce a libperl.a does it ? and > the perl ebuild installs libperl.a into a private directory which isnt really > accessible to packages ... > -mike > Right - libperl [the ebuild] builds the shared library, and perl [the ebuild] builds and links against libperl.a, and places it back in its private area (in a surreal world this is where libperl.so is supposed to live also, so that you can have multiple libperl's on your box, but that's a different flame fest and my toes are still toasting from this morning). And since that libperl.a is only visible to those who know to find it...my question comes full circle on whether anyone out there is actively seeking out and using the static libperl.a :) I have no intention of proposing dropping something that's being used - but if the gist is that one guy on oslo is using it check disk sectors because it meets his mythical needs for the perfect file size, and that's it, i'd like to clean up the dual ebuild scenario (which causes its own problems).
Bah. Way too much thinking involved. ~mcummings
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
