Douglas R. Reno wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> 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.
Under certain circumstances, static libraries can cause problems, so we probably
do want to minimize them. Generally if there is a libsample.a and a
libsample.so, the linker will select the .so version, but if it doesn't exist,
it will us the .a version. If there is a bug in libsample, replacing the
libraries isn't enough with the static library; you have to relink all
executables that use that library -- and often you don't knwo which ones they are.
I though ubuntu didn't include the .a files at first, but then found them in
usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ or /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/`gcc --version`.
Looking at Linux Mint, I do notice that I cannot find libc_nonshared.a, but it
may not have all the -devel packages installed. It does have libc-2.19.so which
is a real library and not just link instructions like a standard glibc build uses.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
