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.