On Monday 13 April 2009 17:17:36 Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> So we are now a year later,
>
> some people are getting excited at getting rid of .la files again but no
> decent solution has been presented yet that I am aware of. We've had two
> situations recently:
> * https://bugs.gentoo.or
So we are now a year later,
some people are getting excited at getting rid of .la files again but no
decent solution has been presented yet that I am aware of. We've had two
situations recently:
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=264249 which got
reverted
* https://bugs.
On Saturday 19 April 2008, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> Furthermore, such things should not be decided and pushed through
> unilaterally but be agreed upon here prior to doing this change.
>
> Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with
> exceptions, of course) we should thin
Luca Barbato kirjoitti:
Alistair Bush wrote:
++. I actually have no problem with agreeing with it, currently my
problem is the complete and utter lack of any _planned_ upgrade path.
What do we think users are going to be saying at the end of the year
when after every sync they have to revdep
Alistair Bush wrote:
++. I actually have no problem with agreeing with it, currently my
problem is the complete and utter lack of any _planned_ upgrade path.
What do we think users are going to be saying at the end of the year
when after every sync they have to revdep-rebuild. Maybe, if we p
Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
Hello!
I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but
since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on
our users I'm mailing this...
flameeyes talked about .la files in his blog recently:
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/article
Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
Hello!
I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but
since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on
our users I'm mailing this...
Have we not learn't! I hardly think that revdep-rebuild is an obvious
solution to th
