headers
Peter Gordon | 1 May 2007 04:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 23:50 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Open Question part:
> 
> Since I don't have any thing other than Gentoo : does anyone know how
> other distros handle static libs in their -dev packages?

Fedora's policy [1] is to only include static libraries when absolutely
necessary, such as with libpci or other libraries that ship *only*
static incarnations (though in these cases the packager is heavily
encouraged to pester the upstream developer(s) about building a shared
library as well); or for specific exceptions where full and satisfactory
reason is given for the inclusion of static libraries (such as, perhaps,
low-level rescue utilities like grub and others, though they generally
then need to explicitly be in a foo-static subpackage when built). All
such cases need to be approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering
Committee (FESCo).

> Does anyone care about static libs except for maybe really really low
> level stuff?
They are useful for rescue operations and whatnot, when a LiveCD or
similar is not handy; or perhaps when the computer cannot boot from an
alternative medium. That's the only major benefit I see of them. 

> My Opinion part:
> 
> I'd definitely would like to see them leave my system for good as I have
> no use for 99% of them whatsoever.
++

> Open Question part:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Donnie Berkholz | 1 May 2007 07:14
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: New project: Gentoo Artwork

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Please get with me some time over the next week as I'd like to discuss a
> few things.  We've been doing some artwork wrt our releases and would
> *love* to have your project take over that work, which means I might
> have a recruit for you.  ;]

I was hoping the artwork team could collaborate with you on labels, i.e.
artwork team comes up with the theme designs and releng implements them
in CD label form. But whoever wants to do the work and has the time to
do it ...

Thanks,
Donnie
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Donnie Berkholz | 1 May 2007 07:16
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

Peter Gordon wrote:
> Back when I used Gentoo (mid-2003 through Nov. 2005), I remember there
> being a "-static" flag that could be set. I don't remember if that was
> in FEATURES or USE though; and not all ebuilds honored it. :| Is there
> similar functionality in modern Portage? 

As was explained elsewhere in this thread by Marius, that's not what the
static flag controls.

For your convenience:

Marius Mauch wrote:
> What decision? That USE=static shouldn't be used for (not) installing
> static libraries is simply because the flag is used to control how
> (parts of) a package should be linked and global flags
> shouldn't be used for completely different purposes. That's been the
> case since the beginning, so I doubt you'll find any dicussion about it.

Thanks,
Donnie
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Roman Zimmermann | 1 May 2007 09:28
Picon

Re: gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

Am Montag 30 April 2007 21:00 schrieb Kevin F. Quinn:
> The thing about static libraries, is that the ebuild that creates them
> doesn't know whether anything else will want to use them.  It may be
> that in practice, most libraries are never used in their static form -
> but the point is that the ebuild doesn't know enough information to
> make the decision.

That's true for now, but it won't anymore when use dependencies are 
implemented. Then a corresponding useflag could be used to opt-in for static 
builds.

> However, with INSTALL_MASK, the user makes the decision never to have
> static binaries, and thus gets a system free of static libraries.

Except the little detail that INSTALL_MASK definately breaks things. I tried 
it yesterday.
The reason is that packages that build static libs (though --disable-static is 
set) will depend on other static libs. With INSTALL_MASK in place those 
static libs are never installed. Hence the build fails.
So it is not a working option.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Radoslaw Stachowiak | 1 May 2007 11:16
Picon
Favicon

Re: gentoo: static/dynamic linking libraries

On 01/05/07, Peter Gordon <codergeek42 <at> gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Does anyone care about static libs except for maybe really really low
> > level stuff?
> They are useful for rescue operations and whatnot, when a LiveCD or
> similar is not handy; or perhaps when the computer cannot boot from an
> alternative medium. That's the only major benefit I see of them.

They are also very often used in chrooted environments.

-- 
radoslaw.
--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Frysinger | 1 May 2007 07:30
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council  <at>  irc.freenode.net) !

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.

Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list
Permalink | Reply | 21 comments |
headers
Petteri Räty | 1 May 2007 11:57
Picon
Favicon

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for May

Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> 
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
> 

I would like the council to remind everyone that this is not appropriate
for any team:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176256#c4

Regards,
Petteri
Permalink | Reply | 20 comments |
headers
Piotr Jaroszyński | 1 May 2007 15:08
Picon
Favicon

tests

Hello,

There was some discussion about forcing/not forcing tests in EAPI-1, but there 
was clearly no compromise. Imho, tests are very important and thus I want to 
discuss them a little more, but in more sensible fashion.

Firstly each test can be(not all categories are mutually exclusive):
- not existant
- non-functional
- not runnable from ebuild
- useful but unreasonable resource-wise
- useful and reasonable resource-wise
- necessary
- known to partially fail but with a way of skipping failing tests
- known to partially fail but with no easy way of skipping failing tests
Is that list comprehensive?

Secondly we must answer the question how precisely we want to distinguish 
them, so users/dev can choose which categories of tests they want to run. 
What comes to mind is:
- run all tests
- run only necessary tests
- run only reasonable tests
- don't run tests at all
Again, is that list comprehensive?

Please don't post solutions unless we figure out which options we really want 
to deliver.

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 39 comments |
headers
Josh Sled | 1 May 2007 15:24
Gravatar

Re: tests

On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 15:08 +0200, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> Firstly each test can be(not all categories are mutually exclusive):
[...]
> - necessary

Could you qualify, please?  Is this "necessary for the (non-test) build
artifact"?

If so, I'd not call it a test, just part of the build that's invoked via
`make check`. ;)

--

-- 
...jsled
http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled;b=asynchronous.org; echo ${a} <at> ${b}
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ciaran McCreesh | 1 May 2007 15:32

Re: tests

On Tue, 01 May 2007 09:24:34 -0400
Josh Sled <jsled <at> asynchronous.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 15:08 +0200, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > Firstly each test can be(not all categories are mutually exclusive):
> [...]
> > - necessary
> 
> Could you qualify, please?  Is this "necessary for the (non-test)
> build artifact"?

There are packages where upstream says that running 'make check' is an
essential part of the build process, and that you shouldn't install
without having done so.

--

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane