On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 11:22:35AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: > crack) > I am puzzled then. What ever was the rational for creating a > xlibs_pic package in that case.
You obviously didn't read the messages the URL's in my announcement. Try again. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200111/msg00028.html > You scream at the maintainer > not to use static libs in shared libs yet you create the very > thing, xlibs-pic, which allows him to violate your rule. Nope. The purpose of xlibs-pic is to serve plugins, not shared libraries. Think again, Hammurabi. > Perhaps you meant to scream... > > Don't link static objects, that aren't built using the -fPIC or -fpic > flags, into shared ones. This breaks on half the architectures in Debian. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200110/msg00353.html > Otherwise you should depreciate out xlibs-pic since its only possible > purpose would be to do the above. First, grab a dictionary and lookup "depreciate" and "deprecate". Note the distinction. Second, xlibs-pic is a brand NEW package, not an old one that needs to be eliminated. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200111/msg00028.html -- G. Branden Robinson | There is no housing shortage in Debian GNU/Linux | Lincoln today -- just a rumor that [EMAIL PROTECTED] | is put about by people who have http://www.deadbeast.net/~branden/ | nowhere to live. -- G. L. Murfin
pgpPOcyZfi7IA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
