On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 07:15:52PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Adding 1100 additional packages to debian, and 800 mb[1] additional to
> be downloaded every apt update is unambiguously bloat. It also goes
> rather against the originally stated rationalle of saving on download
> time. And it wouldn't
Joey Hess wrote:
> Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > Would moving the static libraries to separate packages increase the
> > number of package in Debian, certainly. Would this be "bloat", I don't
> > see it as such. To consider this as bloat is to consider the choice of
> > editors available in Debian
Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> Would moving the static libraries to separate packages increase the
> number of package in Debian, certainly. Would this be "bloat", I don't
> see it as such. To consider this as bloat is to consider the choice of
> editors available in Debian (~100+ according to a quick
On Feb 08, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - libraries can contain short sections of non-PIC code on architectures
>> which allow this [i386 is OK, any other?] if this allows a
>> significant speed increase.
>
>This should be expended to cover the case of assembly files/ __asm
James Troup writes:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For the record, I *need* static libraries.
>
> Why?
I need some programs I built to run on my different accounts on machines
running a lot of different GNU/Linux distributions, Debian, Redhat, Mandrake,
etc... with even seve
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I think that policy needs two small corrections to reflect current
> practices wrt shared libraries and PIC code:
>
> - what is PIC library needs to be correctly defined: compiling with
> -fPIC is not enough to have PIC code, the object MUST NOT have a
> TEXTREL section
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 10:57:27AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:22:38PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> >> Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> >> > Why not move the static libraries to their own package, as someone
> >> > else previously
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:22:38PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>> > Why not move the static libraries to their own package, as someone
>> > else previously suggested? This would still allow those that want
>> > them to have them
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 02:43:30AM +1100, Steve Kowalik wrote:
> At 2:20 am, Sunday, February 9 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis mumbled:
> I personally think in cases such as alsa-driver and libc6, where you have
> the list and all the people who upload the package on one line would be
> was
At 2:20 am, Sunday, February 9 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis mumbled:
> I simply wuold like to know your opinion about the subject.
> IMHO this would be a nice idea: it would give uploaders more visibility, hence
> more satisfaction (afterall they are maintainers too).
> I thought that if
Hi all,
I simply wuold like to know your opinion about the subject.
IMHO this would be a nice idea: it would give uploaders more visibility, hence
more satisfaction (afterall they are maintainers too).
I thought that if we want to speak of collaborative maintainership, there should
not be differenc
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:22:38PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Why not move the static libraries to their own package, as someone
> > else previously suggested? This would still allow those that want
> > them to have them and those that don't to avoid them.
>
> It would bloat the Packages file
I think that policy needs two small corrections to reflect current
practices wrt shared libraries and PIC code:
- what is PIC library needs to be correctly defined: compiling with
-fPIC is not enough to have PIC code, the object MUST NOT have a
TEXTREL section either [any other symbols need to
"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 02:49:33PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
>
>> Note that, looking at the aspell package, I don't think it has
>> included the static library in years, if ever, but no bug report has
>> ever been filed. Likewise, I would expect t
14 matches
Mail list logo
