On Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 07:25:37PM +0100, Steve Haslam wrote: > Isn't xlibg6g-static precedence for this? I don't think it's a bad idea at > all, personally. xlib6g contains shared libraries and locale files, > xlib6g-dev contains imake, include files, .so symlinks and some static > libraries, and I assume xlib6g-static just contains the rest of the static > libraries (libX11.a et al). Please, don't ever bring up X in a Santiago thread if you can help it. It will just remind him to go on another of his hysterical harangues against me for not bowing to his will. I inherited the practice of splitting out the -static packages; it wasn't a decision I made. I wasn't sure if I should stick with it or not, since it is technically against policy, but didn't feel strongly enough about it to change anything. -- G. Branden Robinson | "Why do we have to hide from the police, Debian GNU/Linux | Daddy?" email@example.com | "Because we use vi, son. They use cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | emacs."
Description: PGP signature