Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 05:41:44PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:22:50PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Surely it's possible to change a proposed amendment before it is
> accepted? That's the whole point of discussing it.
>
> Seconding is supposed to mean "I think this proposal is worth
> considering". If it means "I think this proposal is perfect as
> written", then our policy process is no longer lightweight.
Yes, but if I amend the proposal like this, then it needs to be seconded all
over again, doesn't it? I am not convinced that it would be possible to get
sponsors again in a timely manner.
I'd rather if we don't drag this any more. Plugins have existed for years,
this bug was filed almost a year ago, and the patch is almost as old. If
this becomes an ammendment now, the next version of Policy will contain it
(due to be released within a month, I most sincerely hope). It won't be
perfect, but it will be fairly acceptable. I will reopen the bug (or file a
new one) and then we can go through the discussion and requesting for
sponsors again.
> > Besides, hopefully nobody will try to make their plugins unstripped in
> > the meantime.
>
> There are already plugins that are not compiled with -fPIC, though.
> (megahal and wine have some on my system.)
Hmm, but is there a reason against that, are we certain that those plugins
must be relocatable?
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: