[arch-dev-public] [core] progress

Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych at gmail.com
Sat Sep 15 04:56:42 EDT 2007

2007/9/15, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> On 9/14/07, Jan de Groot <jan at jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> > Looking at glib2, it's 5.1MB installed size. That includes both static
> > and shared libs. 1.3MB of that is static libs that we add to it to make
> > sure that syslog-ng can compile static. Is it really so hard to have a
> > library with a G in the name on a base system? Other option is to take a
> > version of syslog-ng that didn't depend on glib2. Compiling glib2 static
> > into syslog-ng will also make the binary bigger, so the savings of not
> > having glib2 on your system is actually even smaller than the 3.8MB that
> > would be "lost" when installing glib2 with only dynamic libs.
> Hey, I'm fine with having glib2 in core. It's a decent library after all.
> I'm all for the simplest solution to this, because it's really a minor
> issue in the grand scheme. To me, it looks like the simplest solution
> is to just include it in the repo. It's not a huge deal, it IS only a
> makedepend anyway.

IMO we *can* have makedepends in any other binary repo, it does not
break anything.
Moving makedepends to the same repo brings nothing useful IMO.

Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list