On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 09:09:09PM -0400, Ersin Akinci wrote:
>You're correct, my intentions are quite different and have nothing at all
>to do with performance concerns. I'm trying to manifest a certain
>aesthetic vision: I like the act of downloading static binaries and
>deleting
On 16 May 2010 01:08, anonymous wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 05:11:48PM -0400, Ersin Akinci wrote:
>> Thus, dynamic libraries would still be used, but at least they would
>> be duplicated, independent, and isolated for each program that needed it.
>
> What problem you are trying to solve? You
On 16 May 2010 02:09, Ersin Akinci wrote:
> You're correct, my intentions are quite different and have nothing at all to
> do with performance concerns. I'm trying to manifest a certain aesthetic
> vision: I like the act of downloading static binaries and deleting them
> without worrying about de
You're correct, my intentions are quite different and have nothing at all to
do with performance concerns. I'm trying to manifest a certain aesthetic
vision: I like the act of downloading static binaries and deleting them
without worrying about dependencies, complicated directory structures, etc.
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 05:11:48PM -0400, Ersin Akinci wrote:
> Thus, dynamic libraries would still be used, but at least they would
> be duplicated, independent, and isolated for each program that needed it.
What problem you are trying to solve? You want to make binaries
independent from environ
Hi all,
I've dropped by in the IRC channel once or twice but that's unreliable, so I
thought that I'd send an e-mail to the list, as well. I discovered suckless
through stali a week ago when I was searching for information on statically
building WebKit browsers for--believe it or not--a new, all-
