On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:01 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> 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 <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? >
Makes sense.
