1 |
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:01 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 04:27:42PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
3 |
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:22:02PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
5 |
>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
6 |
>> >> Hash: SHA256 |
7 |
>> >> |
8 |
>> >> On 24/09/13 02:15 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
9 |
>> >> > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 03:21:07PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
10 |
>> >> >> Out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind making these libs |
11 |
>> >> >> private? |
12 |
>> >> > |
13 |
>> >> > Well, the thought has changed slightly. librc can't be made |
14 |
>> >> > private currently because of openrc-settingsd. libeinfo, on the |
15 |
>> >> > other hand, does not have any known consumers, so there is no |
16 |
>> >> > reason to keep it as a library. |
17 |
>> >> |
18 |
>> >> That doesn't answer my question, though; yes at this point there's no |
19 |
>> >> reason to keep it public, but -why- move it to private? |
20 |
>> > |
21 |
>> > This library has been around for some time, and there are no known |
22 |
>> > consumers. |
23 |
>> > |
24 |
>> > Since there are no known consumers, there is no need for us to have the |
25 |
>> > overhead of linking a shared library for code that only OpenRC uses. |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> So is your plan to convert it to a static helper library, or to have |
28 |
>> the openrc binaries link in the necessary object files directly? |
29 |
> |
30 |
> OpenRC is just one binary, rc. libeinfo is currently just one c source |
31 |
> and one header file, so I'm thinking of just linking the object into the |
32 |
> binary directly. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> What do you think? |
35 |
> |
36 |
|
37 |
Makes sense. |