| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:22:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/08/13 04:03, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 07:42:26PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to |
| 5 |
> >> go and look at fixing them, because I'd prefer to keep them available as |
| 6 |
> >> static builds. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Robin, |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > I'm curious what the use case for keeping them as static builds is? I |
| 11 |
> > would rather see that support dropped as well. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Udev and kmod upstream do not support static builds so I want |
| 14 |
> > to drop that support from our ebuilds. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I started fixing that in kmod and got something else more pressing to |
| 17 |
> do, today I'll spend the whole day trying to get that in shape. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Help welcome obviously. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> As said before using correct C namespacing isn't rocket science. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> (obviously when you start seeing unchecked mallocs and reallocs in |
| 24 |
> library code you might shiver a bit... but that can be fixed later as well) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I would rather not carry distro-specific patches forever to support |
| 27 |
something like this, so please forward your patches upstream. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
William |
Archives