8:26 p.m.
Is this the correct flag to create a statically linked xemacs?
--without-dynamic
I tried this but configure fails to complete.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6:57 a.m.
rh writes:
Is this the correct flag to create a statically linked xemacs?
--without-dynamic
Yes, but it may not be sufficient by itself. Many "modern" distros
don't bother to provide static libraries, or have a policy against
providing certain static libraries that XEmacs needs to link to
(perhaps indirectly).
Of course it's up to you, but I wonder why you want to do this?
XEmacs has suffered from a number of defects in system libraries over
the past few years. I would say that the number I've suffered from
them personally is about the same as the number of times Gentoo has
removed a library out from under me and I've had to relink XEmacs.
I tried this but configure fails to complete.
Meaning what? If you mean a fatal error saying "you can't do that" or
"C compiler can't build executables", my guess would be that you have
a distro that doesn't properly support static linkage.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
2:44 a.m.
On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 15:57:11 +0900
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
rh writes:
> Is this the correct flag to create a statically linked xemacs?
>
> --without-dynamic
Yes, but it may not be sufficient by itself. Many "modern" distros
don't bother to provide static libraries, or have a policy against
providing certain static libraries that XEmacs needs to link to
(perhaps indirectly).
You are right about missing static libraries. I don't understand
what motivates distros to do this?
Of course it's up to you, but I wonder why you want to do this?
XEmacs has suffered from a number of defects in system libraries over
the past few years. I would say that the number I've suffered from
them personally is about the same as the number of times Gentoo has
removed a library out from under me and I've had to relink XEmacs.
Yes, I wanted to try to build it statically to copy it but I've given
up on this.
> I tried this but configure fails to complete.
Meaning what? If you mean a fatal error saying "you can't do that" or
"C compiler can't build executables", my guess would be that you have
a distro that doesn't properly support static linkage.
I got an error about libgcc_s not found. All the error reports for that
message said to upgrade gcc and I gave up on this pursuit.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:07 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:44 PM, rh <richard_hubbe11(a)lavabit.com> wrote:
You are right about missing static libraries. I don't understand
what motivates distros to do this?
If you find a critical bug in a library and your distro uses shared
libraries, then you fix the one copy of the library and all
applications that use the library are automatically fixed. If you use
static libraries, then you have to track down every application that
linked with that library and recompile them all. Distros much prefer
the former to the latter, and so try to avoid static libraries when
they can.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
11:46 p.m.
Jerry James writes:
Distros much prefer the former to the latter, and so try to avoid
static libraries when they can.
That makes sense for distro-distributed builds. But I don't think
they should impose this on users. So an equally important reason has
to be that very few users feel it as an imposition.
Steve
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
2:53 a.m.
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:07:26 -0700
Jerry James <james(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:44 PM, rh
<richard_hubbe11(a)lavabit.com>
wrote:
> You are right about missing static libraries. I don't understand
> what motivates distros to do this?
If you find a critical bug in a library and your distro uses shared
libraries, then you fix the one copy of the library and all
applications that use the library are automatically fixed. If you use
static libraries, then you have to track down every application that
linked with that library and recompile them all. Distros much prefer
the former to the latter, and so try to avoid static libraries when
they can.
Yes but building statically should still work. But since they don't
build statically static builds get no coverage and then it doesn't
work when someone wants/needs that.
I should have asked "What motivates them not to test static builds?"
Answer's still the same...unfortunately.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
11:43 p.m.
rh writes:
You are right about missing static libraries. I don't understand
what motivates distros to do this?
Space and security. They're trying to bring Linux-based systems to
the mass market, in general. (Why *Debian* does this, I don't know.)
There are a lot of people out there with serious space constraints, as
well, including serious production use (think: small AWS instances).
On the security side, static linking links in the security holes
permanently. XEmacs (any program with a shell escape ;-) is one big
security hole so I don't really care, but a lot of people seem to
think we should ignore the elephant in the room and concentrate on
those buffer-overflow cockroaches. :-) When they happen in libraries,
dynamic linking means all apps get fixed on the next invocation, not
on the next build. (Often enough my XEmacs invocations live as long
as the build does, though. :-)
> Meaning what? If you mean a fatal error saying "you
can't do that" or
> "C compiler can't build executables", my guess would be that you have
> a distro that doesn't properly support static linkage.
I got an error about libgcc_s not found. All the error reports for that
message said to upgrade gcc and I gave up on this pursuit.
If you find some spare cycles and want to do it, maybe we can help.
It used to be a cool feature: Steve Baur would statically link his
XEmacs and use it as /bin/sh on his rescue disk! (Past tense because
I suspect with modern large media and initrd technology it's no longer
necessary.)
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5:58 p.m.
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:43:45 +0900
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
Space and security. They're trying to bring Linux-based systems
to
the mass market, in general. (Why *Debian* does this, I don't know.)
I guess no one asks for ability to static link so distros don't do it .
On the security side, static linking links in the security holes
permanently. XEmacs (any program with a shell escape ;-) is one big
Permanently, as-in, until recompile with new libs.
security hole so I don't really care, but a lot of people seem
to
think we should ignore the elephant in the room and concentrate on
those buffer-overflow cockroaches. :-) When they happen in libraries,
dynamic linking means all apps get fixed on the next invocation, not
on the next build. (Often enough my XEmacs invocations live as long
as the build does, though. :-)
FWIW I just wanted to be able to copy xemacs once it's built.
If you find some spare cycles and want to do it, maybe we can help.
I may try at some point and will post issues if so.
It used to be a cool feature: Steve Baur would statically link his
XEmacs and use it as /bin/sh on his rescue disk! (Past tense because
I suspect with modern large media and initrd technology it's no longer
necessary.)
It might make sense still for a rescue usb stick.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:45 a.m.
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:58:00 -0700
rh <richard_hubbe11(a)lavabit.com> wrote:
I guess no one asks for ability to static link so distros don't
do
it .
You generally have to ask for the *-dev package to get the static
libraries. I believe it is done to save disk space......
Cheers,
Sean
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6:54 p.m.
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 23:45:31 -0400
Sean MacLennan <seanm(a)seanm.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:58:00 -0700
rh <richard_hubbe11(a)lavabit.com> wrote:
> I guess no one asks for ability to static link so distros don't do
> it .
You generally have to ask for the *-dev package to get the static
libraries. I believe it is done to save disk space......
Or *-devel, or but yes it's true.
But the issue is "well no one builds 'NewImproved' linking
statically anymore, so no one knows that the build fails when you try"
FWIW statically linked binaries can be realiably sha256sum'd while
a dynamic will return the same check sum even if the libraries have
changed, been moved, deleted or whatever.
Cheers,
Sean
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4053
days inactive
4070
days old
9 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jerry James -
rh -
Sean MacLennan -
Stephen J. Turnbull