On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:35:48 +0100 (CET) Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:30:44 -0600 > > Jerone Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If it where broken out of dtc it would be easier to pickup and pull > > > fixes from it. Even package it so programs can easily build it > > > standalone. > > > > That's akin to saying libcrypto should be broken out to be completely > > standalone from openssl. That doesn't make sense either. > > Thanks, your openssl example triggered me posting this reply ;-) > > I think people are confusing source and binary packages. > > E.g. on Debian, the openssl source package is used to build 3 binary packages: > openssl, libssl0.9.8, and libssl-dev. Hence to install applications that use > libssl, you don't have to install all 3, just libssl0.9.8. > > But this doesn't mean libssl is separate from openssl source-wise: both are > build from the same source package. > > So the single source package dtc could be packaged as 2 binary packages: dtc > and libfdt. Yes, that's certainly possible for the various distros. For Fedora we'd have to get an exception for a static library, or convert it to a shared one. Other distros might not have that restriction. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
