On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 14:26 +0100, Richard Jones wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 03:17:27PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 02:10:45PM +0100, Richard Jones wrote: > > > In particular I could do it if INRIA said that they would support the > > > change in some future release (see the exception "Patches Heading > > > Upstream"). But otherwise this is quite a large ABI change -- if > > > Fedora users started to build lots of 64 bit shared libraries linked > > > with -lcamlrun I could end up maintaining it separately forever. > > [I meant to say -lcamlrun_shared here] > > > I think you misunderstood my proposal. I don't want to apply your > > initial fix which changes libcamlrun.a into libcamlrun.so. I want to add > > a libcamlrun_shared.so, so there would be no ABI change, just the added > > possibility to link against it. > > > > Or maybe you're concerned about having to drop in the future support for > > libcamlrun_shared.so, but I think the user impact of that new library > > would be quite low. In fact I don't think anything else that > > mod_caml-like projects will need it ... > > That would also need to go upstream before Fedora could accept it.
Why? I would have thought it is close to *policy* to provide libraries for both static and dynamic link. -- John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net> Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
