Bug#351618: libantlr-dev: Please include a PIC version of the library

2006-02-11 Thread Sylvain Joyeux
> Does it make sense to always build with PIC? It is possible to build executables with PIC and shared libraries without PIC, it is not customary and induces performance penalties. See http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/pic-internals.xml for a more detailed explanation on PIC/nonPIC issues

Bug#351618: libantlr-dev: Please include a PIC version of the library

2006-02-11 Thread Michael Koch
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 08:22:29AM +0100, Sylvain Joyeux wrote: > Package: libantlr-dev > Version: 2.7.6-2.1 > Severity: wishlist > Tags: patch > > > The library in libantlr-dev is *not* built as PIC, and as such cannot be > included in shared libraries. See patch Does it make sense to always bu

Bug#351618: libantlr-dev: Please include a PIC version of the library

2006-02-05 Thread Sylvain Joyeux
Package: libantlr-dev Version: 2.7.6-2.1 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch The library in libantlr-dev is *not* built as PIC, and as such cannot be included in shared libraries. See patch -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (600, 'unstable')