On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 11:00:47AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > The stuff I worked on is less of this case, however with some of the > older stuff a /lot/ of people ended up the dynamic version to get things > working better on newer systems. > > That said, a good bit of that was linked against 1.0.x and IIRC may have > some problems with current libs anyways, I'd suggest talking to some of > the other ExLoki guys about it. > (Knghtbrd, if you need to you can ask me on IRC who might be good to > ask.) Sam indicates all of the Loki releases were static linked against SDL, but some were offered with a -dynamic bin which in many cases won't run on a Debian box anyway due to a Red Hat acknowledged fuckup regarding shared XEL's they were foolish enough to ship. =p We can discuss details (and further ridicule Red Hat) off-list. ;) > > I would really prefer to avoid having legacy old-broken-SDL libs on > > just two or three archs if it can be avoided. SDL is a fairly big lib > > as it is without maintaining also a limited second copy which is > > promised to become obsolete soon, so I'm hoping you're right. > > Ugh, quite. As already indicated, it seems unnecessary, touch wood. -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net> I swallowed your goldfish <knghtbrd> (tinc) <Espy> (ytitac) <knghtbrd> (ntinac) <Espy> (it) <knghtbrd> (in) * Espy notes talking in acr^Winitialisms is scary when the other side understands you
Attachment:
pgp9BbRimuO5d.pgp
Description: PGP signature