Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:11:20 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/lib/libreadline/readline Makefile Message-ID: <20041018121120.GA67831@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20041018115632.GA87870@ip.net.ua> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
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
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
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
unneded implementation details deeps.
--
Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD)
iQCVAwUBQXOy6OJgpPLZnQjrAQH2XAQAlgRXkZNnJQmFMjofluFU8c0/s58zwOsC
SeWLqHPyS0FPg6BFGqJ/skvv+4N2CEd2wyAZmKoDHsOw3h0u2p0gPcWQyTusQxNh
8qw3CgQ0idwi4WFPhqfCDh+A6IEB+w5ATvpPSlZVknLAEsH4h5sNZGfmM0IbqEfX
q821xwnqmvg=
=cItk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041018121120.GA67831>