Idea: static builds
kline at tao.thought.org
Sat Oct 6 16:21:28 PDT 2007
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:05:36PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> >On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:03:04 -0500, Dmitry Marakasov
> ><amdmi3 at amdmi3.ru> wrote:
> >>I just have an idea that may be useful: static port builds. This can
> >>help produce packages without any depends, which may be useful
> >>Implementation seem pretty straightfoward to me:
> >>- Introduce STATIC_BUILD variable that changes usual build behavior
> >>- Process LIB_DEPENDS in a different way: check .a instead of .so.*, and
> >>fail if .a is missing, and .so is present (i.e. needed static lib is not
> >>available at all), don't add library ports to package depends
> >>- Add -static to CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS
> >>Any comments? I will try to experiment with this for now.
> >How do you deal with the security? It will be required for all ports
> >that depend on a port to be rebuild, so bump the PORTREVISION will be
> >need. But what about for non-static that don't need to be bump? A
> >solution for that might be need too.
> >I have no object with static build as long as it is flexible and
> >optional (disable/enable).
> Static, built upon static, built upon static would be a bad thing to
> watch out for too I'd think...
> Am I wrong?
I would allow the shells to be built statically, and perhaps
most or all of /bin. Hm. And a few other necessary utilities.
Things-X aren't essentials. But vi is. ed still gives me
Wasn't the reason for NON-static builds mostly to
save-disc-space??? Whatever, having ports that build
statically-- things that won't bomb if libfoo.so.3 is
missing-- having this seeems like the best idea in years!
How much hacking to the Makefles is it?
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
[*] for the humor-impaired: Joke.
Gary Kline kline at thought.org www.thought.org Public Service Unix
More information about the freebsd-ports