From owner-freebsd-current Thu Aug 24 3: 8:21 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mailgate.originative.co.uk (mailgate.originative.co.uk [194.217.50.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118A637B43C; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 03:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from originative.co.uk (lobster.originative.co.uk [194.217.50.241]) by mailgate.originative.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC201D140; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:08:17 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <39A4F411.83DB4ED4@originative.co.uk> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:08:17 +0100 From: Paul Richards Organization: Originative Solutions Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Murray Cc: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven , Ollivier Robert , FreeBSD Current Users' list , green@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: make buildworld br0ken in libutil References: <39A2A98E.EC1D33C4@originative.co.uk> <200008221644.e7MGiJe01520@grimreaper.grondar.za> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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