Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: status of OpenRC's public API

[Mike Gilbert]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:01 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 04:27:42PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:22:02PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >> Hash: SHA256
>> >>
>> >> On 24/09/13 02:15 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 03:21:07PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> >> >> Out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind making these libs
>> >> >> private?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, the thought has changed slightly. librc can't be made
>> >> > private currently because of openrc-settingsd. libeinfo, on the
>> >> > other hand, does not have any known consumers, so there is no
>> >> > reason to keep it as a library.
>> >>
>> >> That doesn't answer my question, though; yes at this point there's no
>> >> reason to keep it public, but -why- move it to private?
>> >
>> > This library has been around for some time, and there are no known
>> > consumers.
>> >
>> > Since there are no known consumers, there is no need for us to have the
>> > overhead of linking a shared library for code that only OpenRC uses.
>>
>> So is your plan to convert it to a static helper library, or to have
>> the openrc binaries link in the necessary object files directly?
>
> OpenRC is just one binary, rc. libeinfo is currently just one c source
> and one header file, so I'm thinking of just linking the object into the
> binary directly.
>
> What do you think?
>

Makes sense.