On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What's not correct about it, aside from it not being a shared library?
Well, exactly. It may be correct, but it's not exactly pretty, IMO. My
main concern will be how things like libtool will react to that method.
> To the best of my knowledge, creation of _pic.a objects, and packages to
> contain them, doesn't violate Debian Policy in any way (building regular
> .a's with -fPIC *does*, however). Just look at libc6-pic.
Sorry, I meant that the current situation is invalid re: Debian, not using
a -pic.a library. I agree with you, we need to find a solution that's
viable, one way or another, because the status quo is totally broken.
In another mail, you say:
> While an interface is under development, you either need to be
> responsible about bumping the .so version (else you get binaries that
> won't load), or you need to ship a static library.
My (and others') take is that we should be arguing for being responsible
about such relatively easy things, rather than being 'lazy' (someone
else's words) about it. The libgal mess IMO stems from other issues in
the development model used there. libXv will rev maybe a couple times in
an incompatible way, ever, and there's basicaly zero reason afaict to
install two copies at once, esp. since they come as part of XFree, not as
a separate lib (or is it packaged separately in Debian?).
Erik Walthinsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - System Administrator
__
/ \ GStreamer - The only way to stream!
| | M E G A ***** http://gstreamer.net/ *****
_\ /_
_______________________________________________
Xpert mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
