On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:11 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> With LibO today, there is no real need for that split any longer, so it
> only complicates our code base. I would undo it in incremental steps
Sounds beautiful to me :-) [ though somewhat sad of course in general
]. Hopefully it'll save a few stats / path lookups at startup as well.
> One consequence would be that the 3.5 package and file system layout
> would differ rather substantially from the 3.4 one (so that, e.g.,
> using some form of delta packages to upgrade from 3.4 to 3.5 would
> not be a good idea, if anybody wanted to do something like that anyway).
Hopefully we do enough ABI related & other changes that deltas are not
that relevant anyway.
> (There is also a URE/rest split, which I will not touch for now. At
> least Debian seems to be interested in having a stand alone URE on top
> of which sits a LibO alongside potentially more apps.)
IMHO, we need to drop the URE too - leaving only a vestigal skeleton of
back-compatible ure stub libraries that are linked to the main 'monster'
Link Time Optimised library (with them included).
> So, if you see any issue with this, please make yourself heard.
None here - nice work :-)
Thanks,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
