On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:53:34 +0000 Andrey Utkin <andrey_ut...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:57:35PM +0100, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:40:44 +0100 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > As part of that we also shouldn't deliver static libraries > > > > OK, so you want to absolutely kill dead the only current sane way > > for developers who use Gentoo to ship static binaries to their > > users' target systems? Drive them away to another Linux distro that > > does support being the build platform that they need? Or force > > everyone to use EXTRA_ECONF"--enable-static" and hope for them that > > it works for all packages? All just because static linking > > *between* ebuilds is bad? > > This is close to my current case. Trying (in my own time) to build a > (hopefully elegant) demo setup of Gentoo & crossdev with static libs > enabled, to present as an alternative to CentOS which is currently the > build env at my job (and static linkage is the way the product is > built now). I run into cross-compilation problems when I enable > USE=static-libs to any extent, despite the comment in Gentoo's fake > /usr/lib64/*.so files saying "And yes, this works in the cross- > compiling scenario as the sysroot-ed linker will prepend the real > path". But it's what I'd rather have resolved than have no > USE=static-libs at all. libtool often screws up relinking unless --with-sysroot is passed to configure, which is something we're adding for EAPI 7. I need to take a closer look at those fake .so files to see whether anything more needs to be done. -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer
