Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:14:32 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.libnames.mk src/lib/bind config.mk src/lib/bind/bind Makefile src/lib/bind/bind9 Makefile src/lib/bind/dns Makefile src/lib/bind/isc Makefile src/l Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0409242207460.93902@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <200409241342.i8ODg06a030839@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200409241342.i8ODg06a030839@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Hi, > Log: > Don't expose BIND libraries and their headers to the public by default, > but have a knob (WANT_BIND_LIBS) to build and install them in /usr/lib > and /usr/include. Rumors are that this may be useful at a later point, > let's see. can you please be more precise ? > What this really means is that all BIND libraries are now internal to > buildworld (by default, unless WANT_BIND_LIBS is defined), and linked > statically into various BIND executables. these days that there is a dynalically linked base system why do it the opposite way ? I am just curious ;-) Also I would be interested in the difference of size this makes if you build statically vs. dynamically and in both ways install all binaries (plus libraries in the dyn case) ? Most likely this will no longer be intersting once I understand why we do it that way so perhaps postpone this answer just to save you the time... -- Greetings Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.53.0409242207460.93902>