Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:18:08 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> To: Gary Kline <kline@tao.thought.org>, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Idea: static builds Message-ID: <470833D0.3000903@u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20071006225627.GB66159@thought.org> References: <20071004190304.GA9491@hades.panopticon> <op.tzslm2n29aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> <470806B0.50906@u.washington.edu> <20071006225627.GB66159@thought.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary Kline wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:05:36PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
>> Jeremy Messenger wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:03:04 -0500, Dmitry Marakasov
>>> <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> I just have an idea that may be useful: static port builds. This can
>>>> help produce packages without any depends, which may be useful
>>>> sometimes.
>>>>
>>>> Implementation seem pretty straightfoward to me:
>>>> - Introduce STATIC_BUILD variable that changes usual build behavior
>>>> - Process LIB_DEPENDS in a different way: check .a instead of .so.*, and
>>>> fail if .a is missing, and .so is present (i.e. needed static lib is not
>>>> available at all), don't add library ports to package depends
>>>> - Add -static to CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS
>>>>
>>>> Any comments? I will try to experiment with this for now.
>>>>
>>> How do you deal with the security? It will be required for all ports
>>> that depend on a port to be rebuild, so bump the PORTREVISION will be
>>> need. But what about for non-static that don't need to be bump? A
>>> solution for that might be need too.
>>>
>>> I have no object with static build as long as it is flexible and
>>> optional (disable/enable).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mezz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Static, built upon static, built upon static would be a bad thing to
>> watch out for too I'd think...
>> Am I wrong?
>>
>
>
>
> I would allow the shells to be built statically, and perhaps
> most or all of /bin. Hm. And a few other necessary utilities.
> Things-X aren't essentials. But vi is. ed still gives me
> nightmares![*]
>
> Wasn't the reason for NON-static builds mostly to
> save-disc-space??? Whatever, having ports that build
> statically-- things that won't bomb if libfoo.so.3 is
> missing-- having this seeems like the best idea in years!
> How much hacking to the Makefles is it?
>
> gary
>
>
>> -Garrett
>>
>
> [*] for the humor-impaired: Joke.
>
None whatsoever really. I think it just involves making a few
changes to /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf, if you want to make the
modification just for yourself (I don't do that though, so I'm not sure.
Just OTOH rememberances).
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?470833D0.3000903>