[PATCH 0/2] mtd-utils export libraries

[PATCH 0/2] mtd-utils export libraries

[Sidney Amani]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 214 bytes --]

Hi,

We are currently working on an UBI based userspace filesystem.

We wanted to use libubi. So here is our patch to export shared libraries and
headers. This is done for each library in LIBS.



-- 
Sidney Amani

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 636 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] mtd-utils export libraries

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 15:15 +0100, Sidney Amani wrote:
> We are currently working on an UBI based userspace filesystem.
> 
> We wanted to use libubi. So here is our patch to export shared
> libraries and headers. This is done for each library in LIBS.

Hi, thanks for the patches. However, Mike (CCed) sent a major build
system rework patch recently, but there was an issue and I am waiting
for a new patch from him. Mike, could you please let me know if I
should wait for a new version of your patch or try to apply these
ones?

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)

Re: [PATCH 0/2] mtd-utils export libraries

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 09:37, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 15:15 +0100, Sidney Amani wrote:
>> We are currently working on an UBI based userspace filesystem.
>>
>> We wanted to use libubi. So here is our patch to export shared
>> libraries and headers. This is done for each library in LIBS.
>
> Hi, thanks for the patches. However, Mike (CCed) sent a major build
> system rework patch recently, but there was an issue and I am waiting
> for a new patch from him. Mike, could you please let me know if I
> should wait for a new version of your patch or try to apply these
> ones?

i think the first question is, is this actually desirable.  a shared
library implies stable ABI and a thought out API.  if neither of these
have been done, but you still want to export the libs, the first thing
to do would be to just export PIC static libs.
-mike

Re: [PATCH 0/2] mtd-utils export libraries

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 15:24, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 09:37, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 15:15 +0100, Sidney Amani wrote:
>>> We are currently working on an UBI based userspace filesystem.
>>>
>>> We wanted to use libubi. So here is our patch to export shared
>>> libraries and headers. This is done for each library in LIBS.
>>
>> Hi, thanks for the patches. However, Mike (CCed) sent a major build
>> system rework patch recently, but there was an issue and I am waiting
>> for a new patch from him. Mike, could you please let me know if I
>> should wait for a new version of your patch or try to apply these
>> ones?
>
> i think the first question is, is this actually desirable.  a shared
> library implies stable ABI and a thought out API.  if neither of these
> have been done, but you still want to export the libs, the first thing
> to do would be to just export PIC static libs.

any feedback ?  the build cleanup was merged, but i think we need to
chat about what you're actually trying to accomplish before we export
shared libraries willy nilly ...
-mike

Re: [PATCH 0/2] mtd-utils export libraries

[Sidney Amani]

Hi Mike,

What we are trying to do is an UBI based userspace filesystem (using fuse).
We use the libubi to get volumes and devices info (ubi_get_dev_info,
ubi_get_vol_info, ubi_get_dev_info1, ubi_get_vol_info1).
Otherwise we communicate with the UBI volume through the cdev driver.
I am not sure a shared library is really desirable, probably not,
anyway it's not fundamental for us...
I particularly though that it could be useful for ubi-tools but I also
realize that it's much more restrictive to have shared libraries.

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 15:24, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 09:37, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 15:15 +0100, Sidney Amani wrote:
>>>> We are currently working on an UBI based userspace filesystem.
>>>>
>>>> We wanted to use libubi. So here is our patch to export shared
>>>> libraries and headers. This is done for each library in LIBS.
>>>
>>> Hi, thanks for the patches. However, Mike (CCed) sent a major build
>>> system rework patch recently, but there was an issue and I am waiting
>>> for a new patch from him. Mike, could you please let me know if I
>>> should wait for a new version of your patch or try to apply these
>>> ones?
>>
>> i think the first question is, is this actually desirable.  a shared
>> library implies stable ABI and a thought out API.  if neither of these
>> have been done, but you still want to export the libs, the first thing
>> to do would be to just export PIC static libs.
>
> any feedback ?  the build cleanup was merged, but i think we need to
> chat about what you're actually trying to accomplish before we export
> shared libraries willy nilly ...
> -mike
>



-- 
Sidney Amani

Re: [PATCH 0/2] mtd-utils export libraries

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 07:39, Sidney Amani wrote:
> What we are trying to do is an UBI based userspace filesystem (using fuse).
> We use the libubi to get volumes and devices info (ubi_get_dev_info,
> ubi_get_vol_info, ubi_get_dev_info1, ubi_get_vol_info1).
> Otherwise we communicate with the UBI volume through the cdev driver.
> I am not sure a shared library is really desirable, probably not,
> anyway it's not fundamental for us...
> I particularly though that it could be useful for ubi-tools but I also
> realize that it's much more restrictive to have shared libraries.

i'm not terribly familiar with the fuse implementation details.  are
new filesystems plugins or shared libraries or standalone executables
or ... ?  i.e. are you going to be linking the UBI code into another
library or into a final application ?
-mike

Re: [PATCH 0/2] mtd-utils export libraries

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 11:08 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 07:39, Sidney Amani wrote:
> > What we are trying to do is an UBI based userspace filesystem (using fuse).
> > We use the libubi to get volumes and devices info (ubi_get_dev_info,
> > ubi_get_vol_info, ubi_get_dev_info1, ubi_get_vol_info1).
> > Otherwise we communicate with the UBI volume through the cdev driver.
> > I am not sure a shared library is really desirable, probably not,
> > anyway it's not fundamental for us...
> > I particularly though that it could be useful for ubi-tools but I also
> > realize that it's much more restrictive to have shared libraries.
> 
> i'm not terribly familiar with the fuse implementation details.  are
> new filesystems plugins or shared libraries or standalone executables
> or ... ?  i.e. are you going to be linking the UBI code into another
> library or into a final application ?

I believe they should first actually _develop_ their file-system. I
believe they will change/improve the libubi a lot during the
development. And then we may think about a shared library.

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)

Re: [PATCH 0/2] mtd-utils export libraries

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:15, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 11:08 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 07:39, Sidney Amani wrote:
>> > What we are trying to do is an UBI based userspace filesystem (using fuse).
>> > We use the libubi to get volumes and devices info (ubi_get_dev_info,
>> > ubi_get_vol_info, ubi_get_dev_info1, ubi_get_vol_info1).
>> > Otherwise we communicate with the UBI volume through the cdev driver.
>> > I am not sure a shared library is really desirable, probably not,
>> > anyway it's not fundamental for us...
>> > I particularly though that it could be useful for ubi-tools but I also
>> > realize that it's much more restrictive to have shared libraries.
>>
>> i'm not terribly familiar with the fuse implementation details.  are
>> new filesystems plugins or shared libraries or standalone executables
>> or ... ?  i.e. are you going to be linking the UBI code into another
>> library or into a final application ?
>
> I believe they should first actually _develop_ their file-system. I
> believe they will change/improve the libubi a lot during the
> development. And then we may think about a shared library.

i was inquiring after building a PIC version of libubi for
applications/libraries to link against.  that way people can use it
but still leaves the API open for changes since there is no ABI.
-mike