Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?
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...
--
Shaw's Principle:
Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will
want to use it.
Reply to: