Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:26:52 +0200:
> This is because during
> static linking all functions that are not used can be discarded from the
> final binary, while with shared libraries all the code has to remain,
> because it
On Sat, 2008-11-15 at 00:05 +0100, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> Anyway, we really need to start punting .la files one way or the other.
> For desktop users of our distro, they do a lot more harm than good. For
> embedded, perhaps static linking serves some purpose, but really, if
> you can't afford
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:05:52 +0100
Peter Alfredsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just thought it sounded like a tall order, saying that fixing
> libtool .la files would take some weekends to do, when this problem
> has existed for so long, yet noone has been able to fix it in a way
> that causes
On Friday 14 November 2008, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > [Snip more pie-in-the-sky]
> >
> > Show me the code, please.
>
> If you weren't interested in hearing differing opinions, then why did
> you ask in the first place? :P
I just thought it sounded like a tall order, saying that fixing
libtool .la fi
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:31:47 +0100
Peter Alfredsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > There is still no solution for things that do not break ABI, but get
> > rebuilt with different USE flags, for example the USE=esd fiasco
> > where to get rid o
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:31:47 +0100
Peter Alfredsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > There is still no solution for things that do not break ABI, but get
> > rebuilt with different USE flags, for example the USE=esd fiasco
> > where to get rid of
