libprinter.a .99 error ...?

Daniel Stone daniel at fooishbar.org
Tue Jul 12 08:59:09 EST 2005


On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:49:55AM +0200, Felix Schulte wrote:
> IMO this issue puts a big question mark behind the modularisation
> project. Parts of the xc tree uses shared source code and neither
> source code duplication or addition of new dependencies are proper
> solutions for the modular tree.

It does not put a big question mark on the modular project.  It puts a
big question mark on shoddy code; as much on XKB as Xprint.  Shared
code sucks for everyone for a variety of reasons.

If you need a shared library, then build a shared library (in this case,
there's a perfectly good shared library you're welcome to use ...).  If
you don't, then don't.  Seems reasonably simple to me.

> Just declaring the issue a "bad design" choice (and I do not consider
> this as bad choice) does not make the problem go away and is no
> solution either. Neither is taunting of people who consider this a
> serious problem (IMO this should have been discussed and solved before
> the modularisation hacking started and not during the tree conversion
> process).

Why did you not raise this issue, then?  Surely you guys all knew about
the issue, so the time to raise it was long, long ago.


More information about the xorg-modular mailing list