Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:08:17 +0100 From: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> Cc: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <jruigrok@via-net-works.nl>, Ollivier Robert <roberto@eurocontrol.fr>, FreeBSD Current Users' list <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>, green@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: make buildworld br0ken in libutil Message-ID: <39A4F411.83DB4ED4@originative.co.uk> References: <39A2A98E.EC1D33C4@originative.co.uk> <200008221644.e7MGiJe01520@grimreaper.grondar.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Murray wrote: > > > Why does crypt need to be in libc? Not even a significant fraction of > > applications need crypt? > > Goes for very many libc components. Quite a lot of userland needs libcrypt > (not much as a proportion, but a non-insignificant number). This runs counter to my gut instinct of development which is to modularise code. Modularisation is accepted as a goal in all other areas of the tree it doesn't make sense to me why that thinking is being put to one side when it comes to the libraries. Maybe this should move to arch because I guess I'd like to see a actual design discussion as to why the current thinking is to collapse libraries into libc rather than to actually go the other way and modularise the code. Paul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39A4F411.83DB4ED4>