On 04/10/2013 03:18 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 09:04 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
This is one place where the split into URE and LO directories may become
a nuisance. (It was rather harmless for other scenarios, even helps
keeping the URE interface well-defined for extensions, so there's never
been much incentive in undoing that.)
I assume there is ABI impact in unfolding the URE hierarchy out
of /ure/lib etc. if so we'd need to keep it as-is.
There shouldn't be, at least not for well-behaved clients.
See also
<http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-September/018479.html>
"[Libreoffice] Undoing basis/brand split in 3.5": "There is also a
URE/rest split, which I will not touch for now. At least Debian seems
to be interested in having a stand alone URE on top of which sits a LibO
alongside potentially more apps."
...and response
<http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-September/018486.html>
"Re: [Libreoffice] Undoing basis/brand split in 3.5": "IMHO, we need to
drop the URE too - leaving only a vestigal skeleton of back-compatible
ure stub libraries that are linked to the main 'monster' Link Time
Optimised library (with them included)."
Stephan
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
