libprinter.a .99 error ...?

[Dave Airlie]

> > Yes, it makes sense.  Yes, those are both bad ideas.  They reflect the poor
> > design decision to use client-side code in a server, so now we have to make
> > unpleasant choices.  Life is hard.
> 
> 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.
> 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).

I think you are going a bit over the top, it is a bad design choice
and probably should never have been let into the tree at all ..  but
its in there now and it isn't going to stop modularisation....

can we just link ,v files in CVS behind the scenes? hard or soft
should work... granted if one gets updated you get sneaky updates into
the other tree.. actually that is a sick idea...

someone want to make another shared lib ? :-)

Dave.