On 11-06-15 01:16 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* Yannick Brosseau ([email protected]) wrote:
Changing an dependency from UST to ustcomm is not
removing any dependency, its just adding one more and it makes it harder
to maintain.
It removes the dependency from:
lttng-tools -> libust
by splitting the dependency chain like this:
lttng-tools -> ustcomm
libust -> ustcomm
So this part of your argumentation does not hold: we are in fact
removing a dependency from lttng-tools to libust by creating a separate
"ustcomm" package/lib/header.
I've been wondering, why is the lttng-tools -> libust dependency so "bad" ?
And what changes by moving to lttng-tools -> libustcomm ? That is still
asking people to compile/install another library before installing
lttng-tools.
[...]
So basically, my point is that we should design this so we can do
changes in the API between libust and the applications without requiring
*all* applications to upgrade to the new libust to stay compatible with
lttng-tools.
libtool takes care of this. And even if they are part of the same source
tarball / git tree, libust and libustcomm can each have their own
libtool version number.
Obviously you decide ;) but I agree with Yannick : if libustcomm does
not provide any functionality of its own, it shouldn't be isolated. A
case where it would make sense to have a separate library is if you want
to export the "UST protocol" to other applications so they can use that
protocol outside of libust and lttng-tools. This do not seem to be the
case, at least for now.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Alexandre Montplaisir
DORSAL lab,
École Polytechnique de Montréal
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
