Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:30:54 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: kse@elischer.org Subject: Re: Not providing static libraries (libkse/libpthread) Message-ID: <20030326203054.GC11320@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10303261457140.12205-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> References: <20030326195051.GB11320@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10303261457140.12205-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > Just because Solaris and IRIX doesn't mean we shouldn't; > I'm just using those as examples. My point really is that if you have good reasons (good reasons for us) to drop the archive threads library then you should go for it. Precedence is a good way to make your case, but what applies in those cases may not apply to us, so what may have been good reasons for them may not be good reasons for us. Thus, you have to know (roughly) why they have dropped the archive library if you want to use them as examples. Just stating that it isn't there may just as well mean that it hasn't been installed (or bought), not that they don't have it. I know HP doesn't have it, but they dropped archive libraries completely. And as far as I know they followed Sun's example (as they so often do). Old archive libraries may still be provided for backward compatibility though... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030326203054.GC11320>