From: Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@...>
Date: 2006-03-23T15:15:02+09:00
Subject: Re: Two build issues with 1.8.4..


On Mar 21, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Stephen Waits wrote:

> In attempting to build a completely static ruby, I've discovered a  
> few issues.
>
> The setup..
> ===========
> I've built static versions of readline, zlib, iconv, dbm, and  
> openssl. My intention is to build a completely static ruby,  
> including all possible extensions.
>
>
> Issue #1
> ========
>
> Problem
> -------
> If you build openssl with zlib support, then Ruby's ext/openssl  
> extension will not build.  This is because the extconf.rb needs to  
> include "-lz".  Note, if your libssl.a is build *without* zlib,  
> Ruby does attempt to build ext/openssl.  This only happens when you  
> build libssl.a *with* zlib support.
>
> Resolution
> ----------
> In the openssl extension, I suggest adding a test to see if "- 
> lz" (zlib) exists.  If it does, then include "-lz" on all of the  
> subsequent openssl specific tests.  I don't exactly know how to do  
> this due to unfamiliarity with Ruby's extension build system.
>
>
> Issue #2
> ========
>
> Problem
> -------
> When using a static openssl library (libssl.a), and all static  
> extensions (--with-static-linked-ext), the openssl digest functions  
> (SHA) conflict with the same named symbols in ext/digest.  I  
> imagine this works fine under the *non-static* case because the  
> symbols are resolved at runtime; however, in the *static* case, the  
> symbols must be unique at link time -- and they are not.
>
> Resolution
> ----------
> I don't know about this one either - because Ruby's build system is  
> already somewhat of a magical mystery to me.  However, it seems  
> that we need a mechanism to automagically choose which lib to  
> link.  In the case of a static libssl.a, the ext/digest functions  
> should be considered "weak".
>
>
> Closing Notes
> =============
> If *anyone* knows *anything* about this, or has had similar  
> experience, please let me know.  Furthermore, if there's a more  
> appropriate place to send this kind of thing than ruby-talk, let me  
> know that too.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
>


Have you looked at AllInOneRuby? It may have solved some of your  
problems already. Technically its _not_ a static build of ruby though.

http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/allinoneruby/index.html