On 8/14/2019 2:08 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"DS" == David Sommerseth writes:
DS> As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static.
Isn't that entirely the decision of those maintaining the package? It's
still completely reasonable if they want to remove it for no other
On 14/08/2019 23:08, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "DS" == David Sommerseth writes:
>
> DS> As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static.
>
> Isn't that entirely the decision of those maintaining the package? It's
> still completely reasonable if they want to remove it
> "DS" == David Sommerseth writes:
DS> As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static.
Isn't that entirely the decision of those maintaining the package? It's
still completely reasonable if they want to remove it for no other
reason than it eliminates ten lines from the
On 14/08/2019 07:49, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I found out that nothing in Fedora depends on lz4-static (neither
> runtime nor buildtime). Is anybody using it or I'm free to drop it?
>
> Any thoughts?
Ehm ... This is a _static_ library. Which means you can build against it,
uninstall
Hello,
I found out that nothing in Fedora depends on lz4-static (neither
runtime nor buildtime). Is anybody using it or I'm free to drop it?
Any thoughts?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
