[Peter Samuelson] > > Basically, what I'm saying is, I see no need for the existing .so in > > the kernel build, much less another one. Static libraries are ever so > > much easier to manage.
[Roman Zippel] > If you want to limit people to the config tools in the kernel, there > is indeed no need for a shared library. Note that during the next > development cycle all graphical front ends are possibly removed. Huh? I don't get it. How is a shared library any better than a static library in this regard? I'm pondering the traditional advantages of shared libraries, and I cannot think of a single one that matters here. Peter ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: See the NEW Palm Tungsten T handheld. Power & Color in a compact size! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0001en _______________________________________________ kbuild-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
