From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:50:23 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ragnar_Kj=F8rstad?= Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Writing forward compatible applications using /proc Message-ID: <20010814195022.C22309@vestdata.no> References: <20010811235718.A20414@linux.com> <20010812200701.A657@btconnect.com> <20010814150418.E6463@mail.wave.co.nz> <20010814091401.A322@btconnect.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010814091401.A322@btconnect.com>; from thornber@btconnect.com on Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 09:14:02AM +0100 Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 09:14:02AM +0100, Joe Thornber wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 03:04:18PM +1200, Mark van Walraven wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 08:07:02PM +0100, Joe Thornber wrote: > > > I would much rather see people wrapping the tools than using liblvm, in fact > > > liblvm will probably disappear in the future. > > > > I think it is a bad idea to eliminte liblvm. Shared libraries are much > > easier use to use from programs. For example, it is much easier in a perl > > script to use zlib than to run gzip as a subprocess in a bulletproof way. > > I'm just worried about the interface to liblvm changing and breaking > tools. Let's wait a bit to see where experimental goes, and then see > how much the library had to change. I don't understand why the library interface would need to change more often than the command line interface? -- Ragnar