Sorry Viktor,
Definitely.
I'd also vote to separate for full hbrdd/rdd*, otherwise
we will end up having lots of different combinations with
and without RDD, with and without MT, etc, and at the end
we will have the same amount of libs as we have now, just
the size will be be bigger.
To put it shortly: I'd only include "static" parts in
harbour lib, and I'd create at max an MT and non-MT
version of harbour.lib, the rest left in separate libs.
After all the concept of libs is to have things always
used together packaged together and having every other
things packaged together in separate files. I see no
point in having 4 "unified" lib flavours (same confusion,
slow to generate, consuming more space, bigger binary
packages to distribute, etc)
It would help if MT/non-MT could be controlled at build
time (as we've once started to discuss).
My 2 cents.
Because it seems the consensus is impossible to reach, I vote
for leaving the current status and to forget about one common
lib.
The only thing I'll try do, will be introducing "a hack"
to an alternating make system to allow me (and all others
interested in) creating a one library localy. But I'll try
to do that after a release.
--
Marek
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
