Andres Suffield wrote:
> That makes sense (variation on #4). How about this text? (I'll
> formalise it as a proposal/diff when people have had a chance to
> comment)
>
> When a new virtual package is needed, the maintainers involved should
> decide between themselves on what names should be used,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:41:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think the current process is that a bunch of maintainers
> feel there is a need for a virtual package name, and talk to people
> maintaining related packages, and work out some virtual package names
> that are then used
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:11:30AM +0900, Akira TAGOH wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:30:18 +0100,
> > "BA" == Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So if -static issue is described in README.Debian or
> similar, and provides a solution for using static libraries,
> then even if
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:30:18 +0100,
> "BA" == Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BA> Thanks for this explanation. So you cannot link programs using dlopen()
fully
BA> static (because they will loose the PLT), but you can still link them
partially
BA> static with a static library
4 matches
Mail list logo
