From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 17 10:56:37 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA09106564A for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:56:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from petefrench@ticketswitch.com) Received: from constantine.ticketswitch.com (constantine.ticketswitch.com [IPv6:2002:57e0:1d4e:1::3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2568FC08 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:56:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dilbert.rattatosk ([10.64.50.6] helo=dilbert.ticketswitch.com) by constantine.ticketswitch.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1PemlH-0000yo-Be; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:56:35 +0000 Received: from petefrench by dilbert.ticketswitch.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1PemlH-000FrZ-AW; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:56:35 +0000 Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:56:35 +0000 Message-Id: To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, stuartb@4gh.net In-Reply-To: From: Pete French Cc: Subject: Re: Policy on static linking ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:56:37 -0000 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.