+1 from me This change rolled through very quickly. We have survived perfectly happily with our old policy of installing all the headers and letting people shoot off exactly as many toes of their feet as they like. Having a C++ library that doesn't let people build against it is a little weird. I know packagers like to have only one copy of a system library that never ever changes, but that's just not realistic. Rather than packagers wagging the project dog, I would rather see packagers, who now very much know about this issue, use some other approaches to achieve the level of stability they desire. I'd think that, for apps that are built against the C++ API, statically linking them to GEOS would be a nice way to avoid getting locked into a particular system version of GEOS.
This change is still intra-release, I see no particular problem with rolling it back, and having 3.8 look very much like 3.7. P. On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 4:28 PM Mateusz Loskot <mate...@loskot.net> wrote: > > Dear All, > > I'd like propose to effectively revert the RFC 6: > > https://trac.osgeo.org/geos/wiki/RFC9 > > I'll appreciate if the PSC members considered to review my proposal > and arranged the voting. > > Although I've made my best to prepare the write short, > clear and unambiguous proposal, I'll welcome your feedback. > > Best regards, > -- > Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net > _______________________________________________ > geos-devel mailing list > geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel _______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
