Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:26:38PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:10:06PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Those are good reasons. Those are different reasons than "static
> > libraries are faster", which was the previous argument for keeping them.
> No, that was "one" argument for keeping them, and the only one that I
> could come up with in a short time frame about a subject that I don't
> care much about.
> Since you forced me to think more about it, I came up with two more
> reasons in an equally short timeframe.
> Of course, that begs the question why I seem to be the only one giving
> reasons that seem quite obvious to me, but then again...
It only needs one person to voice them, but thank you for doing so.