Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-perl
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-perl: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-perl@g.o
From: Antoine Raillon <antoine.raillon@...>
Subject: Re: why different ebuilds for perl and libperl?
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:34:24 +0100
Michael Cummings a écrit :
>
> but then came a discussion on -dev about  how the static flag wasn't
> intended for deciding whether you wanted a static or dynamic library,
> which put this whole debate back into question as to whether it fit the
> "rules."
it would save between 30 and 40Mb of space (on amd64 at least ;p) to 
have it only once.
BTW, i'm not sure that on a fried box having perl still running is the 
most important thing (and maybe we could place a rescue perl package 
somewhere, just like there is a rescue portage ;p)

Couldn"t this case be solved by a local perl-[static|dynamic] USE, with 
dynamic behaviour as default, while the rest of the world debates over 
the use of static USE and other "rules" ? ;p

cab
-- 
gentoo-perl@g.o mailing list


Replies:
Re: why different ebuilds for perl and libperl?
-- Michael Cummings
References:
why different ebuilds for perl and libperl?
-- Vadim
Re: why different ebuilds for perl and libperl?
-- Christian Hartmann
Re: why different ebuilds for perl and libperl?
-- Michael Cummings
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-perl: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: why different ebuilds for perl and libperl?
Next by thread:
Re: why different ebuilds for perl and libperl?
Previous by date:
Re: why different ebuilds for perl and libperl?
Next by date:
Re: why different ebuilds for perl and libperl?


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-perl mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.