[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111024092722.GB19242@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:27:22 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: mpc, gmp, mpfr, gcc .specs
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:05:39AM +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> Is there a reason not to include those libs in-tree in the build ? Building those libs out-of-tree makes the RPM dependent on those version,
> and makes upgrading them a PITA. Building them in-tree also links them in statically, and that is one library less to be concerned about.
Keeping these libs in their own packages makes the libs available for
use other than by Owl's gcc - e.g., by a custom build of gcc a user of
Owl might make (without having to build own prerequisite libs as well)
and by any other programs (even user's own source code).
In practice, I expect that I will in fact be making custom builds of
gcc, and saving a few minutes on not having to build the libs each time
(even if done automatically by gcc's build scripts) is desirable.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
