On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:36:57 Thomas Kahle wrote: > On 09:10 Mon 19 Sep 2011, 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? AFAIK the policy was to 'follow upstream' > > Really? For scientific libraries this means 'static only'.
maybe i read too many memes nowadays, but this makes me want to:
statically link ALL the libraries!
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
