[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:46:30 +0100
From: Laurent Bercot <ska-dietlibc@...rnet.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Bits deduplication: current situation
On 25/01/2016 04:59, Rich Felker wrote:
> A possible compromise is to highly abstract these things at the musl
> source level, but generate flat bits files to install, or even flatten
> the headers completely to remove bits so that all definitions are
> inline and explicit in the top-level headers.
Whatever you choose to do, my position is that clarity of the source is
more important than clarity of the installed files. Maintenance effort
goes to the source, not to the installed files. Users who peek at
installed headers to know what's going on will be able to figure it out,
and if they're not, they can always grab the musl source.
Independently from that, I find it nice, when faced with a tree of
headers, to be able to see at a glance what can be copied as is and
what has been generated (and thus cannot be safely modified or reused
elsewhere). So I'm in favor of a separate bits, no matter what the
files under it look like.
--
Laurent
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
