I had thought that linking libwww against static libsocks[45]
eliminates the need for socks at link time (pr 17010), but that's not
exactly what happens -- the SOCKS symbols stay undefined. I guess that
makes sense, since the archives are non-PIC. So the way I see it, we
have a few choices:

1) Apply the fix in the PR to every package that links against libwww
or glibwww. This is weak, because it assumes that USE_SOCKS is always
defined the same as it was when libwww was built.

2) Build _pic.a versions of socks4 and socks5, and link them into
libwwwinit.* or libwwwapp.* with --whole-archive.

3) Just drop support for USE_SOCKS in libwww. This is the one I favor.
In other words, what are the chances that all or any of cad/oregano,
chat/everybuddy-gnome, chat/gale, chat/xchat, devel/glade,
devel/gtkdiff, devel/isect, editors/gnotepad, games/gnome-chess,
games/gnome-games, graphics/ee, mail/balsa, mail/evolution,
math/guppi, misc/gnome-utils, net/gnapster, news/pan, print/ggv,
print/teTeX-bin, www/amaya, www/arena, www/glibwww, www/gtkhtml,
x11/gnome-core and x11/gnome-python can make use of socks? Some of the
likely candidates, like evolution, have only formal (bogus)
dependencies on glibwww, and don't even link against glibwww.

So -- title question --- does anyone have a use for USE_SOCKS in
libwww?

Frederick