On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:05:43 -0600 "Aaron Griffin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Daniel Isenmann > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > in the last time this topic appears again and again. A few > > weeks/months ago I have changed the opera package from the shared > > build Qt3 version to the static build Qt4 version for i686. I have > > done this because some users wanted it. Opera doesn't provide a > > shared build Qt4 version at all and there is also no x86_64 Qt4 > > version, just Qt3 (shared and static) version. > > > > Now I want your opinion about this topic. Should we stay at the Qt4 > > static build for i686 or should we changed back to the Qt3 shared > > build? Personally I don't care if it's a shared or static version. > > If we stay with the i686 static Qt4 version, then the following bug > > entry is right and I have to remove the Qt dependency for the i686 > > version because of the static build. > > > > Here is the bug entry at flyspray: > > http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12588 > > There's something to be said for keeping the builds the same on both > architectures, but this is Opera's goof, not ours, really. > > What's the size difference between shared and static builds? The size differs only in 2MB in tar.bz2. That's not really much at all.
