Thomas Anderson <gentoofa...@gentoo.org> posted 20090419162155.gd21...@dodo.hsd1.nj.comcast.net, excerpted below, on Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:21:55 -0400:
> Why are we trying to get rid of static libraries again? I have not seen > any compelling reason to remove libraries that may be useful to our > users. Perhaps I've missed some discussion(in which case, I'd love to > read it), but this seems like an unnecessary complexity. It isn't that "we" are trying to get rid of static libs, but that the *.la files they need for linking are a pain in the backside for everyone, while only a few people need them. See flameeyes' recent blog on the topic, here (watch the wrap): http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2009/04/18/some-details-about-our-old-friends-the-la-files In addition to that, for archs like amd64 that need to compile things twice if both static and dynamic libraries are provided (due to -fPIC requirements in the dynamic case only, see the recent headaches with mysql and the library amarok needed from it), killing the static libs means shorter merge times and can mean significantly less build script complication. =:^) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=238487 -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
