> >Why don't fossil create a lite version that could be static and the full one >which >will forbid the static option ? >Isn't that a good idea ? >That's like asking, "why not have a fossil which has no networking support?" >and the >answer is, "because it would be nearly useless." On modern Linuxes the >networking >libraries require dynamically libraries at runtime (they will link but will >emit >a warning while linking and may or may not work at runtime). >
I'm not sure if I understand what's being said, but if I do, I would disagree that Fossil sans networking support would be "nearly useless". I use Fossil locally exclusively. I may be in the minority. I do not know. ^K _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
