Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny Billquist <email@example.com>
Date: 08/26/2002 19:29:58
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > Please read my question.
> Why? You're not reading other stuff in this thread? :-)
I'm sorry. I am trying to read it all, but there is always something I
> > I think this is extremely stupid, and I don't want to follow in this
> > direction, so:
> > Is there a way for other not to follow this (in my view) stupid move?
> > But maybe I should take your response for a straight "no"?
> If you had read Luke's post closer, you would have seen:
> + Static linking of programs is still supported; just set
> LDSTATIC=-static in the Makefile or make(1)'s environment.
> Of course, such programs will not be able to benefit from
> future features such as dynamic modules for nsswitch, locale,
> authentication (PAM ?), etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this imply that *all* binaries will
be linked static? Or are you suggesting that I should build each directory
separately, and set the flags by hand before running make?
Admittedly, I can go around and change Makefiles, and that will probably
be what I'll have to do. But I also don't want a /lib, so I'll have to dig
for that as well, and perhaps there is something else I'll have to address
too, which I don't even know about.
It *would* be nice if you had some way for people to keep thing in the old
way here, and that's what I asked for. :-)
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: firstname.lastname@example.org || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol