From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
To: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@ubuntu.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Clarification needed about libbtrfs & libbtrfsutil
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 13:22:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180514202213.GD13417@vader> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANBHLUjcAjvcA3BCn=i4VmDvKUcxSBk4_g3qp7Jw-k84sZXx5g@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 09:40:19AM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Are both of these meant to be public libraries, installed on the user
> systems, and available in .so variant as well for 3rd party
> development and public dynamic linking?
>
> Or are these private internal libraries, which are installed as public
> runtime only, simply to share code between the utils, but otherwise
> provide no abi stability and will forever remain libfoo.so.0?
They're both meant to be public. In fact, libbtrfsutil is already 1.0.0.
> Or should these even be a noinst_ libraries (~= Libtool Convenience
> Libraries), and are simply intermediate by-products?
>
> I'm asking because despite compiling shared & static variants of these
> libraries, and "shared linked" and "static linked" variants of the
> utils, it appears that all utilities are statically linking against
> libbtrfs/libbtrfsutils. Thus no binaries nor bindings, dynamically
> link against neither libbtrfs nor libbtrfsutil.
>
> Tweaking the makefile to use libs_shared variable instead of libs or
> libs_static, results in slightly smaller binaries, dynamically linked
> against libbtrfs/libbtrfsutil.
>
> But it is hard to tell if this is a bug/mistake, or an intentional feature.
I'm not sure why we statically link libbtrfs into the the tools, and I
just copied that for libbtrfsutil.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-14 20:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-14 8:40 Clarification needed about libbtrfs & libbtrfsutil Dimitri John Ledkov
2018-05-14 20:22 ` Omar Sandoval [this message]
2018-05-15 8:14 ` Dimitri John Ledkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180514202213.GD13417@vader \
--to=osandov@osandov.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xnox@ubuntu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).