[lfs-dev] More on static libs

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Thu Mar 12 20:21:53 PDT 2015


On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:54:50PM -0500, Douglas R. Reno wrote:
> I know that I am hopping into this conversation a little late (and without
> too much prior knowledge of the discussion), but I would definitely suggest
> leaving things from Binutils, GCC, Glibc, GMP, Zlib, MPFR, and MPC alone.
> There is just too much that can go wrong if we remove those libraries.
> (Example, Bruce's libc_nonshared.a removal causing a failure with "cc
> dummy.c"). Although I suppose that we could just leave things from GCC,
> Glibc, and Binutils alone. I have followed that some distributions have
> them and some don't, but I understand that the real question is whether or
> not we need them.
> 
> Douglas R. Reno

I take a different view (and I have not been back to my machine yet,
to see where it got its first failure :) - if we *know* that a
particular static library is needed, we can explain why, and document
it.  LFS is about learning.

But zlib ?  Sure, it seems very unlikely that anyone will find a new
bug there, but it's just a general library.  So far, one testsuite
in LFS is known to need the static version.

ĸen
-- 
Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady.
Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list