On Wednesday 17 June 2009 13:44:28 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Andres Mejia writes:
> > What headaches? Forgive my lack of imagination here. Right now I don't
> > see a reason why static libraries should be removed.
>
> I'm not for removing, I'm more for not introducing them in the first
> place.
>
Andres Mejia writes:
> What headaches? Forgive my lack of imagination here. Right now I don't see a
> reason why static libraries should be removed.
I'm not for removing, I'm more for not introducing them in the first
place.
Recent problem (fail to find the bugno, sry), libjack-dev used to shi
On Monday 15 June 2009 01:09:51 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Andres Mejia writes:
> >> [1] good reasons include massive performance gains, extra features, etc.
> >
> > It's merely for convenience to users.
> >
> > Who's "we" by the way? I see various static libraries on my system alone,
> > including
Andres Mejia writes:
>> [1] good reasons include massive performance gains, extra features, etc.
>
> It's merely for convenience to users.
>
> Who's "we" by the way? I see various static libraries on my system alone,
> including static libs for libc, zlib, libbz2, and freealut, so I'm guessing
On Sunday 14 June 2009 10:25:40 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Andres Mejia writes:
> >> > Also, I see there's an option for building a static library but
> >> > doesn't allow it to be built with the shared library. This isn't like
> >> > OpenAL Soft where there's no such option and the -DLIBTYPE=STATI
Andres Mejia writes:
>> > Also, I see there's an option for building a static library but doesn't
>> > allow it to be built with the shared library. This isn't like OpenAL Soft
>> > where there's no such option and the -DLIBTYPE=STATIC option has to be
>> > passed into cmake. For ALURE, do you ha
On Wednesday 10 June 2009 22:23:09 Chris Robinson wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 June 2009 3:51:57 pm Andres Mejia wrote:
> > The ALURE Homepage says ALURE is licensed under LGPL. Checking the source
> > however, there is no copyright headers in any of the source files and
> > there's only the LGPL 2 lic
7 matches
Mail list logo
