Processed: Re: Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 329762 wishlist Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint Severity set to `wishlist'. > retitle 329762 [DISCUSS] documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint Bug#329762: Relaxation

Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint

severity 329762 wishlist retitle 329762 [DISCUSS] documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint thanks Hi, This discussion is very incomplete, with large chunks of information missing. Let us see if I have a correct summary: If you are using gcc, -fPIC produces code with relocatable posit

Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint

* (Marco d'Itri) | Actually I am almost sure that there are some situations in which PIC | static libraries are useful, but I cannot provide examples right now. If you need to integrate them into another .so/build reduced libraries, like what mklibs does for d-i. -- Tollef Fog Heen

Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint

Hi, On Mon, Oct 03, 2005, Adeodato Simó wrote: > Then, I'd say it should be mentioned that such libraries are expected > (must?) be named like this: libfoo_pic.a. I removed the explicit interdiction of using -fPIC with static libs because I thought this had nothing to do in policy. I d

Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint

* Loïc Minier [Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:59:05 +0200]: > - permit building of static libraries with -fPIC (I don't think this >has any reason to be forbidden, does it?) Then, I'd say it should be mentioned that such libraries are expected (must?) be named like this: libfoo_pic.a. Cheers, -

Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint

Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sep 23, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> They are certainly no good reason to _allow_ it. This breaks common > Actually I am almost sure that there are some situations in which PIC > static libraries are useful, but I cannot provide exampl

Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint

On Sep 23, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - permit building of static libraries with -fPIC (I don't think this > >has any reason to be forbidden, does it?) > They are certainly no good reason to _allow_ it. This breaks common Actually I am almost sure that there are some situat

Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint

Hi, On Fri, Sep 23, 2005, Bill Allombert wrote: > They are certainly no good reason to _allow_ it. This breaks common > expectation and is generally slower. I don't see any point to remove > this requirement at this point. I think the policy is a place where we define things that must a

Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint

On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 10:59:05AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: > - permit building of static libraries with -fPIC (I don't think this >has any reason to be forbidden, does it?) They are certainly no good reason to _allow_ it. This breaks common expectation and is generally slower. I don't see a

Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint

Package: debian-policy Severity: normal Tags: patch Hi, As discussed in the debian-policy@ thread at: I propose the following changes to the Debian Policy to: - exceptionally permit not using -fPIC under i386 in CPU