On Wednesday 05 July 2006 09:19, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > splitting gpm into two different source trees doesnt make sense > > It makes sense to me. I've got quite strict policies on that, > since I need them for HA embedded systems. i dont see how that has any bearing on gpm different source trees: -> bitrot -> wasted development time > > ... to do it right, you would update the build system to allow > > the user to select whether to compile just the library, just the > > binaries, or both (default) > > Well, it would be okay for me, if we have an option to use and > external libgpm for the server and make absolutely sure that no > single bit is used from the bundled libgpm. And also the libgpm > has to be trimmed down, only to contain the stuff interesting for > the client (as I already did), which also requires splitting off > some include files. again, if you tweak the build system correctly, none of this is a real issue -mike
Attachment:
pgpXh6xd1e70g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gpm mailing list gpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linux.it/listinfo/gpm