cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h
M. Warner Losh
imp at bsdimp.com
Mon Aug 27 19:32:03 PDT 2007
In message: <20070828005654.GA50401 at dragon.NUXI.org>
"David O'Brien" <obrien at freebsd.org> writes:
: On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:36:15PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708242252520.15344 at sea.ntplx.net>
: > Daniel Eischen <deischen at freebsd.org> writes:
: > : I guess the build system should be more tolerant of this, but
: > : there are bound to be problems regardless. I don't see why
: > : the install tools can't also either have their own set of
: > : libraries (utilizing LD_LIBRARY_PATH) or be built static.
: > There's much resistance to building everything that the build system
: > might be used being build static. It adds too much time and
: > complexity to the build system, the opponents say.
: I've never heard an argument against building these bits static.
: What's the issue?
I thought you were one of the folks making this argument when we last
changed the FILE structure and related hangers on.
None of the binaries is built static by default, so we'd need to build
new versions of them static to make this scheme work. We cannot count
on them being static in the release that we're upgrading from.
However, if we do build new versions static, then they would depend on
the new version of the kernel rather than the current version of the
More information about the cvs-all