| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:03 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 07:42:26PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 3 |
>> As both a member of base-system, and the lvm2 maintainer, I'm going to |
| 4 |
>> go and look at fixing them, because I'd prefer to keep them available as |
| 5 |
>> static builds. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I'm curious what the use case for keeping them as static builds is? I |
| 8 |
> would rather see that support dropped as well. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Honestly, I don't think maintainers should be asked to justify |
| 11 |
features unless they're actually causing some kind of conflict. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If Robin wants to support USE=static for lvm2, he can do so. If it |
| 14 |
somehow caused problems with other packages that would be a different |
| 15 |
matter, but I can't see how a static binary should hurt anything. If |
| 16 |
he wanted to drop dynamic linking support I'd also be concerned. |
| 17 |
However, maintainers should be free to support options even if some |
| 18 |
consider them a waste of time. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If Robin wants to satisfy our idle curiosity he can do so, but let's |
| 21 |
not hound maintainers willing to do extra work unless they're actually |
| 22 |
causing problems. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives