Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CDF14196F0 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 02:10:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] autolearn=ham Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K9HXDNxohYWv for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 02:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a19.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbbj.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.119]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F74431FC1 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 02:10:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sspaeth.de (unknown [195.190.188.219]) by homiemail-a19.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F2249604076 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 02:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by sspaeth.de (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:10:05 +0200 From: "Sebastian Spaeth" To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org In-Reply-To: <8739zfip5j.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> References: <1268347072-2050-1-git-send-email-bgamari.foss@gmail.com> <1268401656-12827-1-git-send-email-ingmar@exherbo.org> <8739zfip5j.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:10:05 +0200 Message-ID: <87vdcbpmhe.fsf@SSpaeth.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [notmuch] Notmuch shared library X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:10:11 -0000 On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:54:16 -0700, Carl Worth wrote: > Finally, I'm a tiny bit annoyed that now after a fresh checkout of > notmuch and "make" that one can't easily run ./notmuch without either > installing the library (or fiddling with LD_LIBRARY_PATH). I've got some > ideas on how to simplify that, but I'm not sure if any are good or worth > it. That was admittedly a very nice feature. And as I have proposed (but not send any patch :-)). I would argue that a --shared and a --static option (or whatever configure standard policy is for that) would make sense that links notmuch either dynamically or statically. But thanks for doing this work. Much appreciated Sebastian