| 1 |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:02:05 +0200 |
| 2 |
Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > What would you do away with? Being able to virtualize packages |
| 6 |
> > > without recompiling everything that depends on them? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Well that's never worked properly or consistently to begin with |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Please answer the question? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That does answer the question: as can be seen from the udev virtual |
| 13 |
example earlier in this thread, we do not have a way of reliably |
| 14 |
avoiding recompilations. Thus it is wrong to pretend that we have this |
| 15 |
feature now, or that fully static dependencies would somehow be to blame |
| 16 |
for recompilations. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives