On 05/11/2010 10:03 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Basically OK, except of the naming proposal (libpic-foo.a etc.).
-1 in its current shape, because this would
a) break with tradional usage of static libs.
b) would require intrusive works on some packages' sources.
+1 with the library naming scheme removed.
I don't know how you accomplish shipping both PIC and nonPIC versions of
the same shared lib without renaming the library. I'm open to
alternative suggestions.
~spot