libprinter.a .99 error ...?

[Daniel Stone]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:49:55AM +0200, Felix Schulte wrote:
> IMO this issue puts a big question mark behind the modularisation
> project. Parts of the xc tree uses shared source code and neither
> source code duplication or addition of new dependencies are proper
> solutions for the modular tree.

It does not put a big question mark on the modular project.  It puts a
big question mark on shoddy code; as much on XKB as Xprint.  Shared
code sucks for everyone for a variety of reasons.

If you need a shared library, then build a shared library (in this case,
there's a perfectly good shared library you're welcome to use ...).  If
you don't, then don't.  Seems reasonably simple to me.

> Just declaring the issue a "bad design" choice (and I do not consider
> this as bad choice) does not make the problem go away and is no
> solution either. Neither is taunting of people who consider this a
> serious problem (IMO this should have been discussed and solved before
> the modularisation hacking started and not during the tree conversion
> process).

Why did you not raise this issue, then?  Surely you guys all knew about
the issue, so the time to raise it was long, long ago.