Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
retitle 66023 [AMENDMENT 06/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently
thanks
Four developers have seconded this proposal, so according to "3.3 Creating
an Amendment" of policy-process document, this proposal is an amendment.
I'm not sure about the date, the document says "[AMENDMENT DD/MM/YYY] ..."
which 1) lacks one final Y :) and 2) doesn't say if the date is of the day
when the proposal acquires two seconds, or the date when one sends the
retitling message, or what.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 04:23:56PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I think we should amend the proposal with a note that the plugins aren't
> exempt from stripping -- this is my oversight. Also, that is a "should"
> rule, so if there are exceptions, this won't cause serious bugs. I'm don't
> know about -fPIC, though, that is a "must" rule. A footnote would be fine,
> I suppose.
I would prefer to let this rest until the initial amendment is in Policy,
since it's not very easy to get seconds and this amendment is already
overdue.
Besides, hopefully nobody will try to make their plugins unstripped in the
meantime.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: