[arch-dev-public] klibc static or shared building
thomas at archlinux.org
Wed Oct 31 10:46:00 EDT 2007
Dan McGee schrieb:
> Just curious- what is the downside of building statically? It seems
> like it could be a plus in some ways, because you eliminate one more
> chance of breakage in early userspace. Of course, this also increases
> the size of your built binaries and increases the size of your initrd.
The binaries provided inside the klibc package were always compiled with
-shared explicitly. The klibc-extras and klibc-udev were always compiled
without -shared or -static, thus statically linked. This was an
inconsistency, mixing static and shared binaries in the image.
The "bug" I actually fixed was that klcc (without -static or -shared
specified) linked a static binary, while gcc linked a shared binary,
which is inconsistent.
We can discuss building all klibc binaries statically, but then we do it
by specifying -static in LDFLAGS explicitly, not by some weird klcc
About the breakage: When klibc is rebuilt, all klibc tools are rebuilt
at the same time, so nothing should ever break.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the arch-dev-public