On 2014-04-29 07:25, Evgeny Grin wrote:
> 29.04.2014, 05:59, "Bob Friesenhahn":
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Evgeny Grin wrote:
>>> Good. But requiring "-no-undefined" for Win32 flag lower probability of
>>> successful compile.
>> In what way does it lower the probability of a successful compile?
>> S
29.04.2014, 11:36, "Peter Rosin" :
> Here you have a point, methinks. If you have specified -disable-static, it
> is surprising that static can be the only output, instead of a fail.
Correct. But this is another topic, which I raised already in this mailing list.
>>> The situation you outlined
On 2014-04-29 17:30, Evgeny Grin wrote:
> 29.04.2014, 11:36, "Peter Rosin":
The situation you outlined is due to a defective package
preparation/build environment. A proper build has just one version of
a given library in a link.
>>> Could you explain this a little bit?
>> It is
