| 1 |
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:22:02PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 3 |
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 4 |
>> Hash: SHA256 |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> On 24/09/13 02:15 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 03:21:07PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 8 |
>> >> Out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind making these libs |
| 9 |
>> >> private? |
| 10 |
>> > |
| 11 |
>> > Well, the thought has changed slightly. librc can't be made |
| 12 |
>> > private currently because of openrc-settingsd. libeinfo, on the |
| 13 |
>> > other hand, does not have any known consumers, so there is no |
| 14 |
>> > reason to keep it as a library. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> That doesn't answer my question, though; yes at this point there's no |
| 17 |
>> reason to keep it public, but -why- move it to private? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> This library has been around for some time, and there are no known |
| 20 |
> consumers. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Since there are no known consumers, there is no need for us to have the |
| 23 |
> overhead of linking a shared library for code that only OpenRC uses. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So is your plan to convert it to a static helper library, or to have |
| 26 |
the openrc binaries link in the necessary object files directly? |
Archives