On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 17:20:07 +
Peter Stuge wrote:
> James Le Cuirot wrote:
> > Damn, I realised just as I hit send that there's a caveat here and
> > that's sub-dependencies. If you're building a partially static binary
> > then I think you're okay. A fully static binary obviously needs all it
James Le Cuirot wrote:
> Damn, I realised just as I hit send that there's a caveat here and
> that's sub-dependencies. If you're building a partially static binary
> then I think you're okay. A fully static binary obviously needs all its
> dependencies to be static and that includes any sub-depende
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 10:43:26 +0100
James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 08:12:09 +0200
> Alessandro Barbieri wrote:
>
> > I was trying to remove static-libs from hwloc and I noticed that the last
> > bump of ceph is requiring hwloc:=[static-libs?]
> > And I notices it needs also alot of o
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 08:12:09 +0200
Alessandro Barbieri wrote:
> I was trying to remove static-libs from hwloc and I noticed that the last
> bump of ceph is requiring hwloc:=[static-libs?]
> And I notices it needs also alot of other dependencies with [static-libs?]
> Is there a *valid* reason for h
I was trying to remove static-libs from hwloc and I noticed that the last
bump of ceph is requiring hwloc:=[static-libs?]
And I notices it needs also alot of other dependencies with [static-libs?]
Is there a *valid* reason for having ceph[static-libs] around in the first
place?
For more context on
