| 1 |
2012/11/1 Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>: |
| 2 |
> On 01/11/12 10:10 AM, Georg Rudoy wrote: |
| 3 |
>> 2012/11/1 Jamie Learmonth <jamie-lists@×××××××××××××.com>: |
| 4 |
> This idea wouldn't work tho -- providing the old boost as binaries |
| 5 |
> isn't actually going to help things, unless they are fully static, as |
| 6 |
> it's the breakage against the toolchain that invalidates them |
| 7 |
> (otherwise it wouldn't be an issue to leave 'em in the tree and for |
| 8 |
> that matter leave boost slotted and have all rdeps just depend on the |
| 9 |
> slot they were written for). And fully static binary packages are |
| 10 |
> just plain wrong on any number of levels for something like this imo. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Moreover, one may run into serious runtime troubles if several copies |
| 13 |
of one static library are loaded into the same address space. So, this |
| 14 |
cannot be decided for all packages IMO, rather on per-package basis |
| 15 |
with opt-in strategy. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Georg Rudoy |
| 19 |
LeechCraft — http://leechcraft.org |
Archives