On Monday, September 19, 2011 03:10:45 Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:39:32 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Sunday, September 18, 2011 18:16:30 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > '$(use_enable static-libs static)' themselves. While at it, it > > > > may be better to just drop the flag if no other package relies on > > > > it and no user has ever requested the static build of that > > > > package. > > > > > > I don't see any harm with including IUSE="static-libs" for every > > > package that has working/usable static libraries[1]. Why wait for > > > users to request it on bugzilla when it's a near-zero-cost and > > > zero-maintenance to add it to ebuilds? > > > > i missed this sentence from Michał's e-mail. unconditionally not > > building static libraries is against policy. if you install shared > > libs that get linked against, then you must provide static libraries > > unconditionally as well or support IUSE=static-libs. maintainers do > > not get to choose "no one has asked for it and no one in the tree is > > using it thus my ebuild isnt going to". > > Where is that policy?
this policy predates much of the documentation process and is missed by the developer handbook. it is however mentioned explicitly in the devmanual. > AFAIK the policy was to 'follow upstream' which > usually means 'shared only'. I really don't see a reason to build > static libtorrent as upstream even doesn't support static linking. by that token, i'll go ahead and remove glibc's static libraries since upstream doesn't even support static linking -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
