On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:51:18PM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > jerenkrantz 02/02/01 09:51:18 > > Modified: . STATUS > Log: > There are really two issues here: > - Can we *ever* build a static binary? That *is* a showstopper, I agree. > And, Aaron has volunteered to fix this soon-ish. > - Separate from that, is the question whether we should we *always* build a > static binary? That I do not believe I *is* a showstopper. So, let's > make the distinction and call for a vote.
I split this out (but left Ken's comment about the default where it was) as it really is two issues as cited above. We've gone over the "enable static binaries by default" on the list. I don't care to discuss this more. Please vote if you care. And, if you aren't aware, we've been adding lots of vote calls in the last 24 hours as we're trying to clean up STATUS to pave the way for a release without any showstoppers present. Even if you aren't a committer, please feel free to cast your votes for items in STATUS - they aren't technically binding, but we can take them into consideration. I will attempt to record them as such in STATUS with the appropriate notations. -- justin
