From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 18 12:11:23 2004
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id C122C16A4CE; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:11:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nagual.pp.ru (pobrecita.freebsd.ru [194.87.13.42])
by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id E401643D1F; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:11:22 +0000 (GMT)
(envelope-from ache@pobrecita.freebsd.ru)
Received: from pobrecita.freebsd.ru (ache@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by nagual.pp.ru (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i9ICBK8D067981;
Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:11:20 +0400 (MSD)
(envelope-from ache@pobrecita.freebsd.ru)
Received: (from ache@localhost)
by pobrecita.freebsd.ru (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id i9ICBKmP067976;
Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:11:20 +0400 (MSD)
(envelope-from ache)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:11:20 +0400
From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>
To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG>
Message-ID: <20041018121120.GA67831@nagual.pp.ru>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>,
Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG>, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG,
cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <200410180836.i9I8afRS060144@repoman.freebsd.org>
<20041018090314.GA86525@ip.net.ua> <20041018090550.GA59302@nagual.pp.ru>
<20041018091004.GC86525@ip.net.ua> <20041018091303.GC59302@nagual.pp.ru>
<20041018091903.GD86525@ip.net.ua> <20041018092347.GA59835@nagual.pp.ru>
<20041018092747.GB59835@nagual.pp.ru> <20041018115632.GA87870@ip.net.ua>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20041018115632.GA87870@ip.net.ua>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter 1.1-beta; AVE 6.28.0.7; VDF 6.28.0.20
(host: pobrecita.freebsd.ru)
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/lib/libreadline/readline Makefile
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:11:24 -0000
--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 02:56:32PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> Having a separate libtermcap library won't save anything with static
> linkage as long as it's a subset of libncurses. Ideally, the binary
> linked with the real termcap library which is a subset of the ncurses
> library will even be of the same checksum.
Of course, I mean crunched variant where whole library packed.
> It's simple. There's no termcap library, whether you specify -lncurses
> or -ltermcap doesn't matter, libraries and applications linked with
> either of them all get libncurses.so as their runtime dependency: run
> ldd(1) and get it. ;)
It is termcap implementation details. The less anything (including=20
sources) knowns about it, the much better.
> In other words: if you make a real libtermcap today (as a subset of
> libncurses), you cannot expect old dynamically linked binaries to
> magically start using it, because they have libncurses.so recorded
> as their dependency.
I talk not about binaries compatibility, but about mass Makefiles=20
reediting.
> The difference between us is how we treat the libtermcap symlinks.
> I treat them as compatibility stuff only for third-party applications
> that are not part of the standard FreeBSD distribution, and you seem
> to treat them as different API libraries. I also fail to get your
Yes.
> point about why linking with -lncurses as opposed to with -ltermcap
> is unportable.
Not every platform have ncurses.
> I have a simple question for you: in your opinion, what's wrong with
> replacing all these -l{curses,mytinfo,termcap,termlib,tinfo} with
> one true -lncurses? I planned doing it one day, but you seem to be
> against it, as follows from the above.
I am against it for the reasons I already explain, it put our sources into=
=20
unneded implementation details deeps.
--=20
Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/
--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD)
iQCVAwUBQXOy6OJgpPLZnQjrAQH2XAQAlgRXkZNnJQmFMjofluFU8c0/s58zwOsC
SeWLqHPyS0FPg6BFGqJ/skvv+4N2CEd2wyAZmKoDHsOw3h0u2p0gPcWQyTusQxNh
8qw3CgQ0idwi4WFPhqfCDh+A6IEB+w5ATvpPSlZVknLAEsH4h5sNZGfmM0IbqEfX
q821xwnqmvg=
=cItk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X--