* Junichi Uekawa (dancer@netfort.gr.jp) wrote: > > > Consider libpng2/3 problem, and see if it possible to > > > still possible to cause problem while following libpkg-guide. > > > > Yes, and I think it's frightening that you advocate staticly linking > > things in your libpkg-guide and the fact that you even wrote one while > > apparently not entirely understanding the issues involved... [...] > I don't advocate it. You offer it as a 'solution' when it shouldn't be considered one. > Did you *really* read the libpkg-guide ? Have you *really* read the thread? Are you planning on replying to the other part of the prior email from me asking you that? Do you still think changing the Build-Deps or -dev deps a little is going to solve the problem I brought up at the beginning of this thread? > It's been edited over the last year, and I consider it to be > pretty good documentation, that if some parts of it entered policy > we could avoid situations like libssl0.9.6 What about it would avoid libssl0.9.6 problems? Nothing I saw would solve the problems of multiple versions of a library ending up linked into the same process except the symbol versioning portion, which is what I'm advocating here but you seem to be against while offering 'solutions' that either don't deal with the problem at all or only solve a portion of it. If you're talking about it fixing other libssl problems then take it elsewhere. We need to discuss the problem I brought up at the beginning of this thread; that's enough of a headache for now. Stephen
Attachment:
pgpqdLtAzH_h8.pgp
Description: PGP signature