From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:52:46 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 3 of 4 RFC] manual: add section about depending on toolchain options In-Reply-To: References: <89b40887c8268e316399.1379494896@argentina> <523A23E0.4040602@mind.be> Message-ID: <20130919165246.687cbe8b@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas De Schampheleire, On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:23:37 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > Well, I think this depends on the semantics of PREFER_STATIC_LIB or > the way we will handle the dynamic library option(s) in the future. If > there is really an option that says 'I want static libs', then I think > it makes sense to add a comment, because it's a user choice. If the > linking is only based on the architecture supporting it or not, and > the user will get dynamic libs when supported, then a comment is not > needed. > > Based on the discussion so far, I don't think we should try to fix the > situation in the context of this patchset, but rather in a separate > one. I would therefore propose, for this patchset, to keep the current > situation and the documentation as proposed in the patch. Later, any > needed changes can be made when the dynamic library handling is > cleared out. In the mean time, I will not add new comments for > packages that depend on !STATIC but do not yet have a comment, as this > may be wasted effort. > > What do you think? I fully agree. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com