From owner-cvs-lib Mon Feb 20 11:53:33 1995 Return-Path: cvs-lib-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id LAA05102 for cvs-lib-outgoing; Mon, 20 Feb 1995 11:53:33 -0800 Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA05096; Mon, 20 Feb 1995 11:53:26 -0800 Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id MAA07128; Mon, 20 Feb 1995 12:56:58 -0700 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 12:56:58 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199502201956.MAA07128@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: "Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage" "Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libcompat Makefile" (Feb 20, 10:28pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: "Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage" , CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-lib@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libcompat Makefile Sender: cvs-lib-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > > Make libcompat a static only library. > > I disagree with this solution. It is functionality reducing and space > waste without any good reasons. What happens when we completely remove one of the functions? We'd be wasting space since we'd need to keep an old version of the libcompat shlib around, and we'd need a new version since the new programs would be linked against the new program. We'd be wasting space. > Old stuff is really needed to port many programs > and it _not_ will change, you can't change whole world. That's why it's provided. It's just not shared anymore. Libcompat is there to *encourage* people to modify their old programs to use the new interfaces. It should *NOT* be depended on being there. Nate