on Jan 31, 2013, K. Fossil user <[email protected]> wrote: > >You do understand what Stephan said. >It is not what I've said, it is what Stephan said...I agree with you. >P.S.: Next time you received a mail from Fossil just click on the button >called [reply >to all], otherwise I [or someone else] will the only guy that may > receive the mail... >:-) Best Regards > >K.
Yes, my mistake & apology. :) I was confused by the similarity in our name configuration of email. :P ^K ps: I just did it again. The name similarity masked the real problem; your email address comes in the from field. I'm used to fossil-users@ being in the from address of mailing list emails. > > De : K <[email protected]> > À : [email protected] > Envoyé le : Vendredi 1 février 2013 0h45 > Objet : Re: [fossil-users] I suggest a lite release of fossil so --static > could be used > > >> >>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 personally use >Fossil >locally exclusively. > >^K > > > _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
