From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Frysinger Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 14:47:27 -0400 Subject: [Buildroot] prefer static libraries question In-Reply-To: <20110422152527.7ec95de5@surf> References: <9AC3F0E75060224C8BBC5BA2DDC8853A1F99AC7E@EXV1.corp.adtran.com> <201104121836.55644.vapier@gentoo.org> <20110422152527.7ec95de5@surf> Message-ID: <201106181447.28438.vapier@gentoo.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Friday, April 22, 2011 09:25:27 Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:36:54 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > might be better to rename or add a new option. then the build logic > > is clear: if user *prefers* static linking, we'll still build/install > > shared libs, but we'll generate static programs everywhere. if the > > user *only* wants static builds, then we can skip the shared lib > > stuff entirely. > > Does the "prefers" use case really makes sense ? I have always found > our BR2_PREFER_STATIC_LIB a bit odd, and I think it should be > BR2_USE_STATIC_LIB instead, and compile everything statically. > > What do you think ? i agree on all points -mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: