Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 06:27 -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote: > > Personally, no, but others do. I should have been less ambiguous (and > > obnoxious) in my initial response. Please don't assume that just because > > _you_ don't need a static Perl, that _nobody_ needs a static Perl. > > Actually, the whole point to my even starting the email thread was to > see if anyone was using the static library or not - i'm not aware of > anything that builds only against the static, but i'm blissful on a lot > of subject matters.
You said it yourself: Perl is the only package which requires a static libperl. This results in... MC> ...having a perl that will work even when everything dynamic is dead. Which brings me to a point: it wouldn't affect me one way or the other. None of my recovery tools rely on Perl correctly linking at runtime. Truth be told, if I should ever break my system to the point where dynamically linked binaries cannot run, my recovery system is the LiveCD hanging on my lamp and some four-month-old backups. [the important part] But other people who are more cautious may rely on Perl in emergencies. Some careful consideration was given to making that a possibility, and I think it would be a shame to let it drop. [/the important part] In any case, you asked for opinions. There's mine. -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ A unix signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent of ^ ^ a black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets surrounding ^ ^ a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like Heinlein or Dr. Who. ^ ^ -- Chris Maeda ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
