> No, this is wrong. With dynamic linking it is proper to
> specify ONLY the
> libraries whos functions you explicitly use. For instance if
> you only call
> imlib functions then you should link only to imlib. In turn, imlib's
> shared library can link to or dlopen whatever other shared
> libraries
e it may be true that it is
sufficient to be *dependent* only on imlib, it is still necessary to
specify all those other implicit libraries to the linker. The linker is
not smart enough to follow all dependencies that stem from linking to a
library. What the linker needs is a list of all the files it ne
> s/Recommends/Enhances/ I take it?
>
> > a reverse relation is the only way to completely remove references
> > to non-main packages from main, which is what this proposal is all
> > about. It's not all about design, there is a political message here
> [..]
>
> RMS originally suggested simply no
failures.
Dit programma moet weten onder wat voor weersomstandigheden uw PC dient te
werken, zodat het adequaat kan reageren op stroomuitval.
<-- conditional, only asked when WeatherType equals "Lots of Rain">
Does this make sense to anyone ? Should I formalize this ?
Ron
ependency system take care of dependencies
on versions and in such a way ensure correct versioning of programs and
libraries ?
Ronald van Loon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <<<
I hold your hand in mine, dear / I press it to my lips. I take a
healthy bite from your dainty fingertips. M
On Tuesday, July 14, 1998 1:44 PM, James Troup [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > it seems that 3 maintainers are not enough and you'll leave Brian to
> > do everything.
>
> Stop lieing; I said nothing of the sort.
>
> --
> James
> ~Yawn And Walk Nort
On Tuesday, May 05, 1998 2:04 PM, Ian Jackson
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Clearly we need a new policy editor. Any volunteers ?
>
> If noone else will do it I am willing (I've done it before, after
> all), though I'd rather spend my time on other things.
>
> Ian.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
> I have generally found that policy is actually decided by
> discussion on the policy lists, and I do not agree with your
> characterization that the multi-maintianer issue had obviously not
> reached a consensus. There were objections, but (apart from you, who
> were silent) the objectors
t; even expulsion (I think the list maintainer reserves the right to do
|" so anyway, right?)
Depends. I personally don't think that `technical' lists like this should have
a list-maintainer in any other capacity than an administrative one. A note
in the charter wouldn't heard, but I feel a bit ambivalent towards
formalizing common decency.
Ronald van Loon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
ant..." kind
of questions. I always counter with "how do you know people wouldn't
want...".)
>>> Ronald van Loon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>>> <<<
I hold your hand in mine, dear / I press it to my lips. I take a
healthy bite from your dainty fingertips. My joy would be complete, dear,
if you were only here, But still I keep your hand as a precious souvenir.
10 matches
Mail list logo
