On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:12:20 -0400, Daniel Macks wrote:
We've long had xft2-dev and fontconfig2-dev keep their headers and
libraries buried in subdirs so that they do not mask system (x11)
supplied versions of those same packages. [...]
> Is it time to unbury these libraries?
Along the same "get out of the dark ages for probably no-longer-needed
compatibility situations that cause their own problems", should we also
scrap the static libs? X11 no longer ships them and keeping them
entails having some sort of inherited build-depends (vs relying on dyld
runtime linking). I vaguely remember some package or two checking for
libFOO.{a,so} as a ./configure test, so scrapping .a would make that
not work, but if it's hardcoded for "static or linux only" it's already
a bit broken?
dan
--
Daniel Macks
dma...@netspace.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fulfilling the Lean Software Promise
Lean software platforms are now widely adopted and the benefits have been
demonstrated beyond question. Learn why your peers are replacing JEE
containers with lightweight application servers - and what you can gain
from the move. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfemails
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
List archive:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
