On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:48:31 -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > I'm just being nit picky :-) > Because changelog says we already depend on -lz, but then in the patch > we explicitly add it. > > I think you were right in pointing out that we already implicitly depend > on -lz via -lelf and/or -lbfd. And it works for non-static builds. > We don't need an explicit -lz unless somebody puts '-static' in > EXTRA_CFLAGS. So maybe we should just submit the patch as is because > it fixes make EXTRA_CFLAGS=-static.
Mm. Sounds reasonable. Fixing EXTRA_CFLAGS=-static would be really cool, too, I always struggle to get a statically linked build. > RE $(error): we don't do it for -lelf, right? So probably not worth > the hassle for zlib. Right, OTOH bpftool doesn't really care about -lelf, it's libbpf that needs it, and libbpf does test.
