From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from jazzhorn.ncsc.mil (mummy.ncsc.mil [144.51.88.129]) by tycho.ncsc.mil (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k034GgXf014102 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 23:16:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (jazzhorn.ncsc.mil [144.51.5.9]) by jazzhorn.ncsc.mil (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k034Fgqa019246 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 04:15:42 GMT Message-ID: <43B9FAAD.10809@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:16:45 -0500 From: Daniel J Walsh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: russell@coker.com.au CC: SE-Linux Subject: Re: libsetrans and libselinux References: <200601031411.13500.russell@coker.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200601031411.13500.russell@coker.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Russell Coker wrote: > Does it make sense to have two separate libraries for these functions? > > It seems that they are both maintained by much the same group of people, will > in many cases need updating at the same time, and will mostly be linked to by > all the same programs, very few programs need libselinux but not libsetrans > and that number is constantly decreasing and it's impossible to use > libsetrans without using libselinux. > > If we have a single library then there are some small optimisations that will > occur, reducing load time and reducing the resident set size by a couple of > pages. > > The reason they are separate is so that you could build a replacement for libsetrans and use it with libselinux. The idea was someone might use the Mitre tranaslation library in place of libsetrans. -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.