| 1 |
On 03-10-2010 15:29, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/03/2010 01:53 PM, David Leverton wrote: |
| 3 |
>> While I do agree that the underlying problem we're trying to solve is |
| 4 |
>> worth solving, I do have a couple of small concerns about how it's |
| 5 |
>> being done. The first is that it seems people are judging whether a |
| 6 |
>> particular .la file is "needed" by checking whether anything currently |
| 7 |
>> in the tree needs it, but this doesn't take into account anything that |
| 8 |
>> /isn't/ in the tree yet. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I think the simpler solution is that if it needs .la, before reaching |
| 11 |
> the tree it has to be fixed... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
<joke> |
| 14 |
Was libtool deprecated or something? Judging by your reply, it really |
| 15 |
made me think so. |
| 16 |
</joke> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The farther we walk from upstream, the greater is the quantity of work |
| 19 |
we have to do to maintain their packages. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> lu |
| 23 |
> |
Archives