On Friday, 16 June 2017 16:58:53 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 03:24:55PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > > On Thursday, 15 June 2017 19:05:55 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > Those cleanups which only depend on libc, gnulib or libxml2 are split > > > out into a separate common/cleanups directory. > > > --- > > > > IMHO a single cleanups.c source should be enough, otherwise it's overly > > split... > > I think you do need to split it. The reason is that if the program > uses libcleanups.la but doesn't link to (eg) libxml2 then the link > will fail. We could either force everything to link unnecessarily to > libxml2 or we can split the object files so that the libxml2 > dependency is never pulled in if the main program doesn't use it. This is for the libxml2 parts though. Also, I see that the cleanups are split from libutils, but then a) libcleanups is basically used where libutils is b) patch #14 makes the daemon link both libcleanup and libutils so IMHO the libc + gnulib cleanups could simply stay where they are, in libutils > And the same applies (but a bit less) to gnulib. I'm not sure > anything doesn't link to gnulib though, and probably everything should > (except examples but they don't use cleanups). I think it's basically used everywhere, even more so after the switch to getprogname (which makes gnulib needed on Linux). -- Pino Toscano
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.