lib dependency confusion

[Bill Cole]

On 12 Jan 2018, at 8:49 (-0500), Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2018, at 11:31, Vincent Habchi wrote:
>
>> Alternatively to what Ryan just mentioned, you can statically link 
>> the executable, which means that you embed all the code the 
>> executable and its dependencies need into the main code. This result 
>> in a bigger executable (more code) but less bloated than a full 
>> install with has a full-blown copy of all librairies.
>>
>> In order to do that, you can link against static archives (.a files) 
>> rather than dylibs.
>
> We don't want ports to link to static libraries if linking to dynamic 
> libraries is a viable alternative.

Then I guess I shouldn't bother submitting an as-static-as-possible bash 
build variant, which is necessary if one wants a safe /bin/{bash,sh} on 
OS versions Apple didn't update for ShellShock. It's a bit ugly 
anyway...


-- 
Bill Cole
bill at scconsult.com or billcole at apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Currently Seeking Steady Work: https://linkedin.com/in/billcole