On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Johnny Billquist wrote:

> 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
> might miss.

Ok. Point taken, sorry if I was snippy.

> > > 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?

True. See note I just sent Greywolf for a suggestion on how we can easily
let folks have /bin and /sbin static while everything else is dynamic.

> 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.

I think not having a /lib would be harder, as then you're really tweaking
the build system.

> 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. :-)

I think we can easily accomodate /bin and /sbin static. The problem over
time will be if we keep supporting this old way and that old way that we
have a support mess. :-|

Take care,

Bill