On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 10:15:45AM -0600, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 01:39:23PM +0200, Maximilian Reiss wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 16. September 2001 07:59 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II: > > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 05:54:03PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote: > > > > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink. > > > > > > > > So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink > > > > because it's causing policy violations? Or is the lintian check > > > > slightly > > > > broader than policy and objprelink within the margin of error? > > > > > > it's not a policy violation..I think it's just a side affect and a false > > > positive. > > > > > > the only reason package maintainers should stop using objprelink is > > > becuase > > > it's a hack and not the correct solution. > > > > > > Ivan > > > > With now having kde starting MUCH slower. Great work. > > What an asshole you are I swear. I work my ass off to provide the proper > and most stable/secure KDE environment for Debian and you start being a prick. > Screw you! You should first go off and learn some manners, then go off and > learn some programming skills so that you would first learn what your talking > about before you start being a dick. > > Damn, this is why I'm spending more time away from the computer these days.
ohh yea..and to boot... the *only* package that is currently not being built with objprelink out of the ones that were is libqt...which means even if it were speeding things up, you would have lost jack shit in speed as most of the speed up comes from the KDE packages themselves...I guess libqt is ultra cool and ignores that and just grindes everything to a halt anyways. -- ---------------- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
