Re: [RFC] -dbg for static libraries?

[GNUtoo <GNUtoo@no-log.org>]

On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 08:13 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 23:48 +0200, GNUtoo wrote:
> > Phil Blundell wrote:
> > > Or, for SDK purposes, you could even consider ditching the .a
> > > libraries altogether for packages that have a .so since virtually
> > > nobody is going to be doing static linking in this day and age.
> >
> > I often do static linking for different reasons:
> > *different libc on the target(like with android for instance)
> > *debugging(like in the case where all shared libs segfaulted on mips
> > +uclibc,I needed a static gdb,a static strace etc...)
> 
> Neither of those are really the kind of use-cases that the SDK is
> targeting.  If you are doing initial bringup/debug on a particular
> target system then you would probably want to use an in-tree build just
> as you do today.  
> 
> The SDK exists to support casual software development on relatively
> stable target platforms, by people who don't wish to build the entire
> system from scratch for themselves, and in almost all cases you don't
> want to encourage static linking there.
> 
> p.
ok thanks for the explanations...I think I have read too fast(lots of
mails) (I was thinking that the static libraries were to be removed in
the normal in-tree build)
Denis.