Em Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:41:39 +0200 Gregor Jasny <gjasny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On 19/09/2016 16:21, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:22:30 +0300 > > Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > >> Add a new variable STATIC_LDFLAGS to add the linker flags required for > >> static linking for each binary built. > >> > >> Static and dynamic libraries are built by default but the binaries are > >> otherwise linked dynamically. --with-static-binaries requires that static > >> libraries are built. > >> > > Instead of adding STATIC_LDFLAGS to all LDFLAGS, wouldn't be better to > > add the flags to LDFLAGS on configure.ac? > > I don't really like adding all those build variants into the configure > script itself. It is already way too complex and adding another > dimension does not make it better. > > Why is passing --disable-shared --enable-static LDLAGS="--static > -static" to configure not sufficient? That sounds better than adding an extra STATIC_LDFLAGS option, but, IMHO, this sounds confusing, and it is not documented. The advantage of having an option is that the expected behavior can be documented in a way that the user will know what each option would be doing by calling ./configure --help. Yet, IMHO, the above parameters don't make clear about what type of output for executable files (static, dynamic, "partially" dynamic). We could (should?) also print, at the ./configure "summary" what kind of libraries will be generated and what kind of executables. Thanks, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
