On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > On 15/05/2019 19:49, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:22:08AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > >> On 5/15/19 9:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > >>> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:16:30PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > >>>> For user-only, we require only the random number bits of the > >>>> crypto subsystem. > >>>> > >>>> We need to preserve --static linking, which for many recent Linux > >>>> distributions precludes using GnuTLS or GCrypt. Instead, use our > >>>> random-platform module unconditionally. > >>> > >>> I don't think we need to special case in this way. > >>> > >>> Today if you do a default build with all targets & tools and want > >>> to use --static, but don't have static libs available for some > >>> things you can achieve that > >>> > >>> ./configure --static --disable-gnutls --disable-gcrypt --disable-nettle > >> > >> But we don't really want all of those --disable arguments by default. It > >> would > >> be one thing if one explicitly used --enable-gnutls and got link errors. > >> We > >> must preserve --static working all by itself. > > > > That's already not working today unless you add extra args to disable > > build of the system emulators and tools. > > > > Perhaps it can help, I have a series queued by Paolo to cleanup the > build dependencies for --{disable,enable}-{system,user,tools}: > > [v3,0/5] build: cleanup in Makefile.objs > https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10880135/
I don't think it'll make a difference to use of --static when trying to build a default config (ie all targets + tools) Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|