From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:20:55 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] qwt: compile as a static lib if QT_SHARED is not selected In-Reply-To: <20150120174507.1d11ab61@free-electrons.com> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:45:07 +0100") References: <1421749049-1431-1-git-send-email-richard.genoud@gmail.com> <20150120174507.1d11ab61@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <87siey4i48.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: > Dear Richard Genoud, > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:17:28 +0100, Richard Genoud wrote: >> If Qt is compile as a static library, there's no point compiling qwt as >> a shared library, otherwise, we will have a huge qwt lib and a huge Qt >> application. >> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Genoud >> >> +ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_QT_SHARED),y) >> + QWT_CONFIG += -e 's/^.*QWT_CONFIG.*QwtDll.*$$/QWT_CONFIG += QwtDll/' >> +else >> + QWT_CONFIG += -e 's/^.*QWT_CONFIG.*QwtDll.*$$/\# QWT_CONFIG += QwtDll/' >> +endif > 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. It does complicate LGPL compliance and I don't know if the disk space concerns are as big these days though. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard