From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TGo7H-0001EK-Ty for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:41:15 +0200 Received: from elite.brightsigndigital.co.uk ([81.142.160.137] helo=[172.30.1.145]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TGnus-0006KD-Ew; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:28:26 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: Richard Purdie Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:28:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1348649372.8662.90.camel@ted> References: <1348577690.31293.70.camel@phil-desktop> <1348610357.2853.5.camel@lenny> <1348610431.1335.11.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> <1348611089.2853.7.camel@lenny> <1348649372.8662.90.camel@ted> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.2- Message-ID: <1348651706.31293.89.camel@phil-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] util-linux: Remove static libraries from -dev packages X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:41:16 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 09:49 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 18:11 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 23:00 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > > > > > That'd be inconsistent with other packages, since we do generally build > > > and ship the static libraries. Having a big switch to turn off static > > > libraries globally seems like a fine plan, but I can't see any obvious > > > reason why the util-linux ones are any more useless than the rest. > > > > Makes sense. I wonder if there are actually any users of the static > > libraries. > > > > For what it's worth in gnome-ostree I do just globally pass > > --disable-static by default. > > I tested this a while back to see what performance difference it made. > The answer was "nothing too significant", I don't have the exact timings > handy. I do remember having to exclude sqlite-native from the list since > pseudo static links against it. It's slightly surprising that it doesn't make that much of a difference, given that building static libraries does essentially double the number of compilations for library code. Though, of course, glibc doesn't support --disable-static nowadays and there might be a few other big packages that have the same issue. I guess that if you have enough cores, compilation count becomes something of a non-issue since it's one of the few things that does parallelize very well. It might be interesting to repeat the measurements of --disable-static on a machine with only a few CPUs and see whether it makes more of a difference there. Out of interest, why does pseudo static-link against sqlite anyway? p.