[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: SDL and X static extension libraries re-revisited

#include <hallo.h>
Branden Robinson wrote on Thu Nov 01, 2001 um 02:53:07PM:

> > This is getting absurd.
> What is so offensive about it?

Means a second major change. And all this only because only one central
package cannot be fixed in a proper way.

> > > Otherwise, you stand an excellent change of rendering your users'
> > > programs useless with unresolved symbol errors when they try to run
> > > them.
> You know any volunteers?  Debian needs to be guarded about telling
> upstream developers when and how to stablilize their interfaces.  They

How often did that stuff change? 20 times? 50 times? What are we talking
about? Just three libs, using less than 50kB space. I think you should
know anyways when a major change may be happened (even without extra

> are (presumably) part of the Free Software community with whom we made
> our Social Contract.

Oh please, they should learn to make compatible software. Such situation
is just imaginable in many parts of the software scene, why here?

> I'd say the very existence of libgnomeprint15 and libgal206 (or whatever

Well, I think you will be an old man when XFree86-206 is released. This
comparison ist not realistic looking ath the work needed for depending

> it's up to today), are strong arguments FOR the recently ratified Policy
> amendment that permits omission of shared versions.

Please? We could also exclude all architectures which cannot link static
code into shared libs. Would make our life much easier, don't you think so?

"The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience,
and Hubris"                              (from the man-page for perl).

Attachment: pgpcbed_Laa9m.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: