Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:24:17 +0400 From: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> To: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Idea: static builds Message-ID: <20071007172417.GA1082@hades.panopticon> In-Reply-To: <op.tzslm2n29aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> References: <20071004190304.GA9491@hades.panopticon> <op.tzslm2n29aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Jeremy Messenger (mezz7@cox.net) wrote: > 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). I know all the negative sides of static builds, as much larger binary sizes, memory consumption, upgrade problems when dependent library is vulnerable/updated etc, but I just thought that it could be useful sometimes. For example, I'd rather install static package of some Gnome/KDE app (while I don't use Gnome/KDE) than install all dependencies (that are mandatory just because somebody didn't bother to OPTIONSify, say, kdelibs). What I propose is just an option that may be usedul, but don't guarantee anything. Like, for example, WITH_DEBUG. But, yes, it would be nice to indicate that the port should be rebuild if any of libs it use are updated, I need to think about it. -- Best regards, Dmitry Marakasov mailto:amdmi3@amdmi3.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071007172417.GA1082>