From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: Building Ceph statically linked Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:24:32 +0100 Message-ID: <5283E000.3040707@dachary.org> References: <5283DF7D.9080203@42on.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from smtp.dmail.dachary.org ([91.121.254.229]:36661 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750951Ab3KMUYf (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:24:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5283DF7D.9080203@42on.com> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Wido den Hollander , "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" On 13/11/2013 21:22, Wido den Hollander wrote: > Hi, > > While doing some tests I'm trying to build Ceph statically. I have a = bunch of machines where I run Ceph on for these test (mostly RGW now) a= nd I'm running into some library issues when switching from branches. > > To make my life a bit easier I tried compiling Ceph (especially RGW) = statically linked, but somehow I keep ending up with a dynamically link= ed binary. > > What I tried: > > $ env CXXFLAGS=3D"-static" ./configure --enable-static --disable-shar= ed > $ make > > Usually that should spit out a static binary, but 'radosgw' is still = dynamic. > I suspect it's because you did not --with-radosgw and it was not recomp= iled. Cheers > I'm not such a autoconf nor automake guru, so does anybody ever build= static binaries with Ceph? > > Yes, I'm aware they can become very large, but that's not my concern = right now. I just want to upload a binary to a machine, run it and see = if it does what I'm hoping it does and not having to worry about all th= e dependencies being there and being the right version. > --=20 Lo=EFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html