| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:22:02PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 24/09/13 02:15 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 03:21:07PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> Out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind making these libs |
| 8 |
> >> private? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Well, the thought has changed slightly. librc can't be made |
| 11 |
> > private currently because of openrc-settingsd. libeinfo, on the |
| 12 |
> > other hand, does not have any known consumers, so there is no |
| 13 |
> > reason to keep it as a library. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> That doesn't answer my question, though; yes at this point there's no |
| 16 |
> reason to keep it public, but -why- move it to private? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
This library has been around for some time, and there are no known |
| 19 |
consumers. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Since there are no known consumers, there is no need for us to have the |
| 22 |
overhead of linking a shared library for code that only OpenRC uses. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I think the KISS principle [1] applies here very nicely. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
William |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_principle |
Archives