Re: plans with libmerged

On 04/10/2013 03:18 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 09:04 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> > This is one place where the split into URE and LO directories may become
> > a nuisance.  (It was rather harmless for other scenarios, even helps
> > keeping the URE interface well-defined for extensions, so there's never
> > been much incentive in undoing that.)
>
>         I assume there is ABI impact in unfolding the URE hierarchy out
> of /ure/lib etc. if so we'd need to keep it as-is.

There shouldn't be, at least not for well-behaved clients.

See also 
<http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-September/018479.html> 
"[Libreoffice] Undoing basis/brand split in 3.5":  "There is also a 
URE/rest split, which I will not touch for now.  At least Debian seems 
to be interested in having a stand alone URE on top of which sits a LibO 
alongside potentially more apps."

...and response 
<http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-September/018486.html> 
"Re: [Libreoffice] Undoing basis/brand split in 3.5":  "IMHO, we need to 
drop the URE too - leaving only a vestigal skeleton of back-compatible 
ure stub libraries that are linked to the main 'monster' Link Time 
Optimised library (with them included)."

Stephan