On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 04:27:42PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> 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? William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
