From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 21:42:53 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] qwt: compile as a static lib if QT_SHARED is not selected In-Reply-To: <87siey4i48.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <1421749049-1431-1-git-send-email-richard.genoud@gmail.com> <20150120174507.1d11ab61@free-electrons.com> <87siey4i48.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <54C7F84D.7050006@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 25/01/15 23:20, Peter Korsgaard wrote: >>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: [snip] > > I think we should get rid of BR2_PACKAGE_QT_SHARED completely, and use > > BR2_STATIC_LIBS here instead. > > I agree that it would be cleaner, but the reason the explicit QT_SHARED > stuff was added was afaik a lot of systems only needed Qt in a single > application / that application only used a subset of the Qt > functionality, so having a static libQt while everything else was shared > was quite a big win in size / startup time. But can't you just build with BR2_SHARED_STATIC_LIBS and link your application with --static? That's what BR2_SHARED_STATIC_LIBS was meant for, right? Regards, Arnout > > It does complicate LGPL compliance and I don't know if the disk space > concerns are as big these days though. > -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F