Removing Static Libraries

Sanctus Evanidus evanidus at videotron.ca
Mon Mar 18 23:40:55 PST 2002


Carmen <cmwck at nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi, I'm halfway through chapter 6 of the LFS book and I just have one 
> question regarding the static libraries which were installed during 
> chapter 5.  Now that I'm compiling everything with dynamic libraries 
> instead of static, do I really need the old static libraries lying 
> around?  Is it safe to remove them to save some space?  If so, what 
> would be the best way, as i don't think doing a rm *.a on the whole 
> system sounds like a good idea.
> thanks,

Not all are neccesary from ch5 (some static libraries were recompiled and 
installed in ch6 in case you ever need to compile a static program)

What will happen if you do rm *.a?

1. You won't be able to compile LFS again using your LFS system. (you won't be 
able to redo ch5, will need another distro again or recompile the static libs..)

2. You won't be able to update (if you ever do) a few programs which actualy 
need to be compiled using static links. (IIRC from LFS programs, this is mainly 
true only for binutils' ldconfig and ldd program plus glibc's sln program (sln 
isn't really important however, you may need to modify the makefiles to skip 
sln to stop them from erroring out however))

I suggest you "at least" keep glibc's and gcc's static libraries.

But the best I can suggest, if you want to save space, is to throws all your 
static libs in a tar.bz2 and uncompress them the day you'll need them again.
(they compress very well)

Backup = your best friend

-Evan
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-support' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-support mailing list