On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 18:55 +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > Dnia 24-05-2006, śro o godzinie 12:37 -0400, Bill Nottingham napisał(a): > [..] > > It was linked statically. Static glib libs went away, so.... > > OK. Next round .. why have (literaly) *one* binary (ppp-watch) which > uses now shared libglib must affect glib ? > Is not better rewrite this tool for not use glib ? or what so big > performs ppp-watch where using glib is neccessary ? is it realy so hard > rewrite this for not use glib ? > > kloczek > PS. remember: fixing some bad things by introduce some way less ass pain > way is *most* worse way of development :> > Better is rest this kind things in current form and add them to TODO > list. > What problem do you have with glib in /lib ? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
