| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò |
| 2 |
<flameeyes@×××××××××.eu>wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 30/10/2012 12:31, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I've never understood why Gentoo uses a separate ebuild for it. I mean, |
| 7 |
> > I can understand some efficiency gains from having a single compiled |
| 8 |
> > copy, but it shouldn't be surprising in the least when upstream makes |
| 9 |
> > breaking changes in the API. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Because bundled libraries are bad. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared library, so |
| 15 |
there shouldn't be a conflict there. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Now, I understand that it's supremely convenient to be able to fix a bug in |
| 18 |
one place, rather than grep and patch that bug in the source of all the |
| 19 |
other packages...but then you come back to messes spawning from upstream |
| 20 |
not treating that as a supported configuration. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Though since I'm not contributing labor (apart from the five minutes to |
| 23 |
write this email), I probably don't really have the right perspective. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
:wq |
Archives