[PlanetCCRMA] State of Fedora 26 repo
Yury Bulka
setthemfree at privacyrequired.com
Wed Oct 25 01:27:31 PDT 2017
Do I understand correctly that at present moment SC includes their own
versions of third-party libs?
bernardobarros at gmail.com writes:
> On Sun, 2017-10-22 at 12:00 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>> I don't think there are any licensing issues. At some point I think
>> there was a problem with boost as SC needed its own version (and
>> Fedora
>> does not like that, you have to link with existing libraries instead
>> of
>> using a different one).
>
> I don't think that's a good idea. Even sc developers don't know for
> sure what can go wrong with a boost lib update.
>
> I think an independent repository will always be necessary for such
> cases, and for the realtime kernel.
More information about the PlanetCCRMA
mailing list