Re: glibc-devel vs. glibc-devel{,-static}

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Bill Crawford wrote:
> Surely either the compiler, or binutils, would need to have that as a
> Requires: rather than every package that's built with gcc (especially
> since it's not the program itself that *has* that requirement, it's the
> toolchain).

But that defeats the purpose of being able to track everything which is
statically linked to something.

And I know I'm splitting hairs there. ;-) libc_nonshared.a and the other
nonshared stuff in glibc deserves an exception.

        Kevin Kofler

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux