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>