Idea: static builds

Dmitry Marakasov amdmi3 at
Sun Oct 7 10:22:52 PDT 2007

* Jeremy Messenger (mezz7 at wrote:

> 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).

I know all the negative sides of static builds, as much larger binary
sizes, memory consumption, upgrade problems when dependent library is
vulnerable/updated etc, but I just thought that it could be useful
sometimes. For example, I'd rather install static package of some
Gnome/KDE app (while I don't use Gnome/KDE) than install all
dependencies (that are mandatory just because somebody didn't bother to
OPTIONSify, say, kdelibs). What I propose is just an option that may be
usedul, but don't guarantee anything. Like, for example, WITH_DEBUG.
But, yes, it would be nice to indicate that the port should be rebuild
if any of libs it use are updated, I need to think about it.

Best regards,
  Dmitry Marakasov               mailto:amdmi3 at

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list