On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 03:28:54PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> My own view is that, at least for the common case, static libraries
> don't really serve a useful purpose today; they are rarely used, and
> needlessly bloat our -dev packages. Wherever possible, we should be
> providing shared librari
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gerrit Pape wrote:
>> I can't see how you justify severity serious, not through policy
>> AFAIK.
> Good point. Let's amend policy to require that a _pic.a library be
> provided for any static-only libra
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:28:27PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Good point. Let's amend policy to require that a _pic.a library be provided
> > for any static-only library; it seems to be an unreasonable omission. I
> > wouldn't conside
On Jan 06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good point. Let's amend policy to require that a _pic.a library be provided
> for any static-only library; it seems to be an unreasonable omission. I
> wouldn't consider a library package which can't be used by any shared library
> to be
Gerrit Pape wrote:
> Nothing forces a maintainer to provide a _pic.a library, original
> upstream says that this is not what the library is intended for.
Checked djb's website; he says absolutely nothing about _pic.a libraries.
There is no claim there that "that is not what the library is intended
5 matches
Mail list logo
