[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.

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