Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 2 May 2012 16:50:46 +0200
From:      Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
To:        Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Switching /etc/*.db from bdb to tinycdb
Message-ID:  <20120502145045.GP31034@azathoth.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20120502144706.GZ2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
References:  <20120502114115.GG31034@azathoth.lan> <CA%2BhQ2%2Bgv%2BQ7SXbK-G5Lybjt4XOF_b3EvyxtQiOCL7pGxmgWRcg@mail.gmail.com> <20120502123149.GI31034@azathoth.lan> <20120502140235.GA91732@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20120502134546.GM31034@azathoth.lan> <20120502144706.GZ2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--r/w8vo2lxBmCPGjQ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 05:47:06PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 03:45:47PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 04:02:35PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 02:31:49PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > > > Why importing to libc? to allow all the get*ent to parse the /e=
tc/*.db
> > > > > > files
> > > > > >
> > > > >=20
> > > > > just curious, where do we have  the bdb 1.85 routines now ?
> > > > > Are they all in libc, or split between libc and libutil ?
> > > >=20
> > > > All in libc
> > >=20
> > > ok then it makes sense to preserve the structure and have
> > > everything in libc as des suggested. Just a curiosity again,
> > > any estimate of code size ?
> > >=20
> >=20
> > That is pretty small:
> >      545 cdb.c
> >       76 cdb_find.c
> >       81 cdb_findnext.c
> >       19 cdb_hash.c
> >      113 cdb_init.c
> >      184 cdb_make.c
> >       50 cdb_make_add.c
> >      204 cdb_make_put.c
> >      100 cdb_seek.c
> >       29 cdb_seq.c
> >       18 cdb_unpack.c
> >      126 cdb.h
> >       41 cdb_int.h
> >     1586 total
> > regards,
> > Bapt
> I do not think that the size matters at all, as far as it fits into tens
> of KB of compiled code.
>=20
> What I do care a lot there, is the namespace pollution. I would strongly
> object against exposing cdb symbols from libc, even in the private
> namespace. Having the symbols hidden in libc is fine.
>=20
> The reasoning is that we do not want our libc unneccessary interpose
> symbols from third-party libs, and do not want to make a surprise for
> somebody who wants to use the never version of the same library, or use
> a symbol not documented in SUSv4 etc while linking to libc/libpthread
> only.

I do understand that, I know need to learn how we can do that cleaning

regards,
Bapt

--r/w8vo2lxBmCPGjQ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk+hScUACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ex/5gCfYJWfXroLkzL9r/vwXi/gLeJv
oWcAmwY9nkO6dSw4Q+88z5qUK0DNde1r
=VTXr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--r/w8vo2lxBmCPGjQ--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120502145045.GP31034>