Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>