On Jul 2, 2005, at 2:21 AM, Bernd Ernesti wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 05:46:58PM -0500, Min Sik Kim wrote:
>
>>> With this change it is not longer possible to copy the binary on  
>>> other
>>> machine, which has no pkg's installed and use it there a standalone
>>> version, which use shared libraries.
>>>
>>
>> In this case, I recommend building bash manually (configure; make)
>> and copying the binary.  You can still use pkgsrc to fetch the
>> distfile and apply patches.  Please let me know if you have more
>> compelling reasons not to use devel/readline.
>>
>
> Yes, it just adds another external library to a program.

It also minimizes redundancy by sharing libraries with other packages.

> The needed libraries for a shell should be keept to a minimum.

The "static" option will do this.

shells/bash can either fully utilize shared libraries or avoid  
relying on other libraries at all.  What you want is in the middle:  
to use base system libraries only and none in pkgsrc.  And the reason  
for this is to copy the binary to other systems with the same base  
system libraries and no pkgsrc packages.  (Correct me if I  
misunderstood you.)

I personally don't think this is worth the efforts to add another  
option to pkgsrc.  Since Bernd and I clearly disagree here, I'd like  
to know what others think.

Regards,
Min Sik Kim