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
XEmacs-Beta mailing list