On Dec 10, 2007 9:52 AM, Pat Suwalski <<a href="mailto:pats@xandros.com">pats@xandros.com</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">Luis Mondesi wrote:<br>> Yep. Splashy is now dynamically compiled by default! Now that's going to<br>> make a lot of our friends happy (Fedora?). libsplashy{1,cnf} are just as<br>> small. And Splashy works like a charm from initramfs.
<br><br></div>This might seem nice at first, but if you add up all of the dynamic<br>libraries, I'm sure it will be much larger than the static version. I've<br>never understood why anyone would want to make initramfs even more
<br>complicated than it already is!<font color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br>Yes, I agree. We will still support static builds. The problem is that
other binaries which also need libsplashy1 (like suspend/resume programs and so on) will be able to share that portion of the code. Also, whenever there is a security problem with some portion of Splashy (say directfb), sysadmins won't have to bother re-compiling Splashy as well.
<br><br>A small price to pay I think.<br clear="all"></div></div><br>-- <br>----)(----- <br>Luis Mondesi<br>Maestro Debiano<br><br>----- START ENCRYPTED BLOCK (Triple-ROT13) ------<br>Gur Hohagh [Yvahk] qvfgevohgvba oevatf gur fcvevg bs Hohagh gb gur fbsgjner jbeyq.
<br>----- END ENCRYPTED BLOCK (Triple-ROT13) ------