lib dependency confusion

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jan 12, 2018, at 08:14, Bill Cole wrote:

> 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...

If you're suggesting that with this variant you would build bash with MacPorts and then replace /bin/bash with it, then no, that would not be something I would necessarily advocate having in MacPorts.