From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:16:26 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] About static linking In-Reply-To: <20140424042911.GD22908@tarshish> References: <20140423225243.38a542c0@skate> <20140424042911.GD22908@tarshish> Message-ID: <20140424091626.61180eef@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Baruch Siach, On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:29:11 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > > This is not at all against your patch specifically, but I'm a bit > > worried about all the static linking related kludges we add all over > > the place. Is this normal? Shouldn't we fix the packages themselves and > > submit patches upstream? > > Upstream submission is of course preferable. In this case upstream does not > appear to be very active. The current release is from 2008, while development > started at 2007. > > Do you prefer a Makefile patch that could theoretically be upstreamed? I must say I don't know. In fact, I was not necessarily speaking specifically of this particular change, but more generally about all the LIBS='-lfoo' we're adding all over the place to fix static linking problems. This seems a bit fragile to me. And the point of raising this question was specifically to get a discussion started, and see the opinion of others (Gustavo, Peter, Arnout, Yann, etc.). Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com