Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Cummings <mcummings@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Does anyone want|need a static (lib)perl still?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:22:36
Message-Id: 1137579501.13489.12.camel@sys947.dtic.mil
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Does anyone want|need a static (lib)perl still? by Drake Wyrm
1 On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 20:18 -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
2
3 > Portage is not the only important system tool. Some of us actually use
4 > Perl. Please do not be with the breaking.
5
6 Is this to say there is a valid need for both libperl.a and libperl.so
7 on your box? (really asking, honest). This isn't about breaking perl,
8 its about whether or not we need to build both versions of libperl or if
9 that's just legacy from when gentoo was considering a 1.0 release in the
10 far future and thought having a static perl was a decent enough notion.
11
12 ~mcummings

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Does anyone want|need a static (lib)perl still? Drake Wyrm <wyrm@×××××.com>