[Xorg] shared vs static libraries

[Daniel Stone]

On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 21:38, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 13:31, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > So, in that case, it is not ready, and must be removed from the tree. To
> > use your own words, 'I am not happy with playing alphatester for such a
> > combination in a _production_ environment'; please decide whether it is
> > ready for shipping, in which case it should be a shared library with
> > soversion 0.0.0, or it is not ready for shipping, in which case you
> > retract it to your own tree.
> 
> I would disagree with this, and say that instead it's fine to build and
> use the static lib internally in X.Org, but the lib must not be
> installed unless it is also installed shared and soversion bumping is
> done on API changes as appropriate.

It's going to stick around, and it's going to be hell, and it will cause
us hell in the future. It's there -> great! let's use it!, in most
people's minds, and externally deployed pseudo-random apps are far
easier to supersede than, say, X deployments.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20040811/2738e7ef/attachment.pgp>