Policy on static linking ?

[Pete French]

Interesting reading the responses to this from over the weekend,
and I think that Stuart Barkley's comment below strikes the biggest
chord with me:

> Today, I probably wouldn't fight using dynamic linking.  I do wish
> things would continue to provide static libraries unless there are
> specific reasons static libraries won't work.  I would like to see
> libc remain fully functional when statically linked.  I would like
> documentation about functionality lost when statically linking with
> libc.

That's kind of my position too - for 99.9% of cases I (like everyone else)
link dynamicly. But for those 0.1% of cases where static linking is
a useful and good idea then I want to be able to do so - and I worry
that we are heading for a situation where it's not going to be possible
to link staticly with things in ports. 

If we had a standardised know to define then I could have submitted a pr
including a patch and that might have been acccepted - after all the intent
of removing statics was to prevent people linking with them without
knowing, so if they have to explicitly enable ot then I assume that
would be acceptable.

-pete.