Re: [Buildroot] Removing BR2_SHARED_STATIC_LIBS [was: [PATCH 1/1] package/pkgconf: fix BR2_SHARED_STATIC_LIBS build]

From: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
To: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
Cc: "Bernd Kuhls" <bernd.kuhls@t-online.de>,
	"Thomas De Schampheleire" <patrickdepinguin@gmail.com>,
	"Giulio Benetti" <giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com>,
	"Heiko Thiery" <heiko.thiery@gmail.com>,
	"Jörg Krause" <joerg.krause@embedded.rocks>,
	"James Hilliard" <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>,
	"Asaf Kahlon" <asafka7@gmail.com>,
	"Fabrice Fontaine" <fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com>,
	"Angelo Compagnucci" <angelo.compagnucci@gmail.com>,
	"Peter Seiderer" <ps.report@gmx.net>,
	"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	"Buildroot Mailing List" <buildroot@buildroot.org>,
	"Romain Naour" <romain.naour@gmail.com>,
	"Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>,
	"Adam Duskett" <aduskett@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] Removing BR2_SHARED_STATIC_LIBS [was: [PATCH 1/1] package/pkgconf: fix BR2_SHARED_STATIC_LIBS build]
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:22:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YmhUeP8XcuH7x5Pc@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56cf3cb2-d00b-b957-8b0b-2a095e5797a0@mind.be>

> On 24/04/2022 18:33, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> [snip]
> > I have always been a bit confused on how BR2_SHARED_STATIC_LIBS was
> > supposed to work, to be honest... Sure, it meant we wanted to _build_
> > both the static and shared libs.

>  The problem is that it only actually works for autotools packages. They are
> still dominant (more than 1/3 of all packages), but diminishing fast and
> many "headline" packages are no longer autotools. I don't really like to
> have an option that doesn't even work for most packages.

That IMHO justifies removing this option.

Kind regards,
Petr

>  Regards,
>  Arnout

> > But how were we going to tell packages
> > whether they were supposed to link staticially or not?

> > Surely we do not want a per-package option... Then we're left with
> > deciding at the package's .mk level, by hard-coding some heuristic to
> > decide.

> > In upstream, we have no such case where we'd want a package to be
> > statically linked even in the presence of shared libraries (maybe the
> > the exception being busybox, for those who want to cheaply build an
> > initrd before pivoting in the final rootfs, but that can be done with
> > a config fragment or a custom config file in any case).

> > This leaves out-of-tree packages.

> > In that case, there can be tons of reasons to prefer a static link even
> > in the presence of shared libraries.

> > So, the real quesiton is whether we want to support that use-case or
> > not.

> > If we do, then we need to keep BR2_SHARED_STATIC_LIBS and fix those
> > packages that misbehave in its presence, like done for dropbear.

> > Regards,
> > Yann E. MORIN.

_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot