On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Ales Katona wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > > How does this make it a reason ? > > > > libfprtl will always be specific to the distribution it was compiled on. > > If tuned, it should be tuned to that system. > > Just like libc or any library close to the system is. Don't try to copy a > > binary libc.so from a SuSE to a Fedora system, it won't work. Just like > > you shouldn't copy kernel32.dll from Windows XP to Windows 2003. > > > > > > > I don't think this is feasible. It would be if you'd get it into those > distroes but people will want to take their own < 1mb libfprtl.so with them > rather than copy 30mb fpc on various distroes with their apps. That is exactly my point: this <1mb libfprtl can only contain low-level stuff which can be expected to be the same on all distros... > > Ofcourse the question is, do we want to utilize libfprtl.so at all? > How do we want to cope with new features in OSes? We don't. We just make the interface available, that's it. It shouldn't be used by default in libfprtl. Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
