[RFC] libm replacement for Busybox

[Rob Landley]

On Monday 20 October 2008 17:23:50 Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
>  However adding a menuconfig option could show static linking against
> libm.a as an _OBVIOUS_ way to avoid deploy the whole libm.so on the
> target system. In this case, I think the problem is not "if we can do
> it" but "how we can let be obvious to others doing such a thing". In
> few words move a [not obvious] thing in the [obvious] domain.

Has anybody ever actually needed to do this?  We can already statically link 
busybox, and we can already dynamically link busybox.  Is there a point to 
statically linking against SOME libraries but dynamically linking against 
others?  Is this a common enough case to complicate the build system for?"

Has anyone ever actually _needed_ to statically link libm but leave libc 
dynamically linked?  Anyone?

>  Cheers,

Rob