Re: why different ebuilds for perl and libperl?

Michael Cummings a écrit :
> but then came a discussion on -dev about  how the static flag wasn't
> intended for deciding whether you wanted a static or dynamic library,
> which put this whole debate back into question as to whether it fit the
> "rules."
it would save between 30 and 40Mb of space (on amd64 at least ;p) to 
have it only once.
BTW, i'm not sure that on a fried box having perl still running is the 
most important thing (and maybe we could place a rescue perl package 
somewhere, just like there is a rescue portage ;p)
Couldn"t this case be solved by a local perl-[static|dynamic] USE, with 
dynamic behaviour as default, while the rest of the world debates over 
the use of static USE and other "rules" ? ;p
cab
--
gentoo-perl@xxxxxxxxxx mailing list