<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.26.0"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 15:51 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <TT>> >> This is an important point. We are waisting time trying to guess what</TT> <TT>> >> this patch is for.</TT> <TT>> >></TT> <TT>> > Oh, I know what it's for, it's needed for pyxf86config.  I just don't</TT> <TT>> > think anyone is prepared to commit to a stable ABI for libxf86config, so</TT> <TT>> > installing it as a shared library may not be the best plan.</TT> <TT>> </TT> <TT>> IMO, just because you decided to make the library shared doesn't mean</TT> <TT>> you've suddenly agreed to any more ABI stability than before.</TT> <TT>the big difference is compile-time vs. run-time ABI stability.</TT> <TT>which especially in the case of a distribution can make a difference because</TT> <TT>once you compile a lib from package A into package B, what happens to A</TT> <TT>doesn't matter until you recompile B too. with a shared library, updating A</TT> <TT>can break B.</TT> <TT>(that of course doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, it's just how it</TT> <TT>is)</TT> </BLOCKQUOTE> I lost track of the details, but my general feeling is that it is a development issue. Developers should decide if shared lib or not with the desired level of compatibility. If that discussion does not happen, the issue cannot be solved with a hack in the build. So far no one has claimed adding fPic is the correct way of creating a shared lib or that it is a necessary workaround to a situation libtool cannot handle and that it will work on all supported platforms. Gaetan </BODY> </HTML>