On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 15:51 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > >> This is an important point. We are waisting time trying to guess > what > > >> this patch is for. > > >> > > > Oh, I know what it's for, it's needed for pyxf86config. I just > don't > > > think anyone is prepared to commit to a stable ABI for > libxf86config, so > > > installing it as a shared library may not be the best plan. > > > > IMO, just because you decided to make the library shared doesn't > mean > > you've suddenly agreed to any more ABI stability than before. > > the big difference is compile-time vs. run-time ABI stability. > > which especially in the case of a distribution can make a difference > because > once you compile a lib from package A into package B, what happens to > A > doesn't matter until you recompile B too. with a shared library, > updating A > can break B. > > (that of course doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, it's just how > it > is) >
I lost track of the details, but my general feeling is that it is a development issue. Developers should decide if shared lib or not with the desired level of compatibility. If that discussion does not happen, the issue cannot be solved with a hack in the build. So far no one has claimed adding fPic is the correct way of creating a shared lib or that it is a necessary workaround to a situation libtool cannot handle and that it will work on all supported platforms. Gaetan
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
