On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 15:26 +0100, Delcypher wrote:
should be down to the user and not the distro (yes I'm aware I could
compile boost myself... that's what I'm doing right now but what
happened to Keep it Simple? If I wanted to compile loads of stuff
from scratch I'd be using Gentoo).
So
My last reply was flippant. Apologies for that.
Huhh I didn't realise clang used LLVM as a shard library.
I guess my perspective is slightly skewed because I work on another LLVM
based project that uses static libraries instead (the project uses an
old version LLVM).
However, I don't see
Hi,
Apparently I cannot post to arch-dev-public so I'm posting this here.
This is a proposal for making separate packages for static libraries
(with a patch for Boost C++ libraries as an example). Please see
below...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Daniel Liew
[2013-09-28 15:26:56 +0100] Delcypher:
For popular packages that have can build static libraries and shared
libraries, build both but put the static libraries into their own
*-staticlibs package and the *-libs packages should contain only
shared libraries. For example for boost you would have
Am 28.09.2013 16:26, schrieb Delcypher:
I really don't think that completely removing static libraries from
the repositories is the correct approach because it I believe the
choice of whether or not to have static libraries on your system
should be down to the user and not the distro
This has
On 28/09/13 19:27, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
[2013-09-28 15:26:56 +0100] Delcypher:
I am strongly against this proposal.
For many reasons, including those in the page Allan pointed to, dynamic
libraries should be the default on Arch systems, and they should be the
only supported type of library.
[2013-09-28 22:25:55 +0100] Dan Liew:
On 28/09/13 19:27, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
[2013-09-28 15:26:56 +0100] Delcypher:
I am strongly against this proposal.
For many reasons, including those in the page Allan pointed to, dynamic
libraries should be the default on Arch systems, and they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28/09/13 19:32, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 28.09.2013 16:26, schrieb Delcypher:
I really don't think that completely removing static libraries from
the repositories is the correct approach because it I believe the
choice of whether or not to have
On 2013-09-28 23:50, Dan Liew wrote:
[1] 11.4.2. LLVM is a Collection of Libraries
http://www.aosabook.org/en/llvm.html
My last reply was flippant. Apologies for that.
However, I don't see any mention of why static libraries should
supposedly be better for LLVM at the above URL. Can you
On 2013-09-28 23:50, Dan Liew wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28/09/13 19:32, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 28.09.2013 16:26, schrieb Delcypher:
I really don't think that completely removing static libraries from
the repositories is the correct approach because it I
10 matches
Mail list logo
