On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 15:26 +0100, Delcypher wrote:
> should be down to the user and not the distro (yes I'm aware I could
> compile boost myself... that's what I'm doing right now but what
> happened to "Keep it Simple"? If I wanted to compile loads of stuff
> from scratch I'd be using Gentoo).
>
> My last reply was flippant. Apologies for that.
Huhh I didn't realise clang used LLVM as a shard library.
I guess my perspective is slightly skewed because I work on another LLVM
based project that uses static libraries instead (the project uses an
old version LLVM).
>
> However, I don't see
On 2013-09-28 23:50, Dan Liew wrote:
>
> [1] 11.4.2. LLVM is a Collection of Libraries
> http://www.aosabook.org/en/llvm.html
My last reply was flippant. Apologies for that.
However, I don't see any mention of why static libraries should
supposedly be better for LLVM at the above URL. Can you di
On 2013-09-28 23:50, Dan Liew wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 28/09/13 19:32, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>> Am 28.09.2013 16:26, schrieb Delcypher:
>>> I really don't think that completely removing static libraries from
>>> the repositories is the correct approach becaus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28/09/13 19:32, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 28.09.2013 16:26, schrieb Delcypher:
>> I really don't think that completely removing static libraries from
>> the repositories is the correct approach because it I believe the
>> choice of whether or not t
[2013-09-28 22:25:55 +0100] Dan Liew:
> On 28/09/13 19:27, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> > [2013-09-28 15:26:56 +0100] Delcypher:
>
> > I am strongly against this proposal.
> > For many reasons, including those in the page Allan pointed to, dynamic
> > libraries should be the default on Arch systems, and
On 28/09/13 19:27, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> [2013-09-28 15:26:56 +0100] Delcypher:
> I am strongly against this proposal.
> For many reasons, including those in the page Allan pointed to, dynamic
> libraries should be the default on Arch systems, and they should be the
> only supported type of libra
Am 28.09.2013 16:26, schrieb Delcypher:
> I really don't think that completely removing static libraries from
> the repositories is the correct approach because it I believe the
> choice of whether or not to have static libraries on your system
> should be down to the user and not the distro
This
[2013-09-28 15:26:56 +0100] Delcypher:
> For popular packages that have can build static libraries and shared
> libraries, build both but put the static libraries into their own
> "*-staticlibs" package and the *-libs" packages should contain only
> shared libraries. For example for boost you would
Hi,
Apparently I cannot post to arch-dev-public so I'm posting this here.
This is a proposal for making separate packages for static libraries
(with a patch for Boost C++ libraries as an example). Please see
below...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Daniel Liew
Date: 28 September 20
10 matches
Mail list logo
