On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 10:48:51PM +0300, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 19:51:44 +0100 > Ian Kumlien <po...@vapor.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 08:57:42PM +0300, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > > On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 00:19:29 +0100 > > > Ian Kumlien <po...@demius.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Sometimes, when you least expect it, a static binary is what you need to > > > > rescue your data... Or just get a good enough handle on things to make > > > > it work again ;) > > > > > > > > "make static" is a gift to you, dear user with filesystem problems! > > > > > > What's wrong with conventional LDFLAGS=-static make? > > > > That doesn't work for me, does it actually work for you? > > > > I'd say it wouldn't without adding LDFLAGS so that the compiler gets it > > for all object compilations. > > -static is link-only flag. > Mostly yes, it works. > LDFLAGS="-static -pthread" make > > make all binaries static. > > It needs > sys-apps/util-linux > sys-libs/e2fsprogs-libs > sys-fs/e2fsprogs > sys-libs/zlib > to be built with USE=static-libs . > > $ ldd btrfs > not a dynamic executable > $ ldd mkfs.btrfs > not a dynamic executable > > None of built binaries is dynamic.
Yes, my point is it's not simply "LDFLAGS=-static", do you see any real harm in having a static tagrget? Something that tries to make sure that it's actually built correctly? (Your approach relies on not likning any old objects since make doesn't honor CFLAGS/LDFLAGS as dependencies.) > -- > > Sergei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
