Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: glibc 2.2. version?

[Zack Weinberg]

Nathaniel Smith <address@hidden> writes:

> Yes, yes, we'd love to distribute static versions.  The problem is
> that _there is no longer such a thing as a static build with recent
> glibc versions_, because the glibc maintainers do not think
> supporting this case is important.  If anyone out there makes a
> static build, then yay.  I just tried, and couldn't even get a
> binary out (even ignoring the warning messages about how even though
> this build is static it will still require the same versions of libc
> be installed at run time as if it were dynamic).  Sorry.  We fought
> this and lost.

It might be worth trying a static link against everything but glibc.
To do this you link the program with gcc (g++ will screw you up by
introducing references to the shared libgcc) and you don't use any -l
options; instead you write

   -Wl,-Bstatic,-lfoo,-lbar,-lstdc++,-Bdynamic

at the end of the link line.

zw