[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dragonfly-submit
Subject:    Re: patch to unhook libxpg4 and liby from build
From:       Chris Pressey <cpressey () catseye ! mine ! nu>
Date:       2004-03-30 1:11:40
Message-ID: 20040329171140.48290d8e.cpressey () catseye ! mine ! nu
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:45:51 -0800 (PST)
Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> wrote:

> :So, in order to remain POSIX.2 compliant, we do have to keep liby
> :around.  On the other hand, there's no obligation for our programs to
> :link to it if they don't use anything from it.
> :
> :-Chris
> 
>     Yes, I agree.  You need to keep the -ly stuff that's in our .mk
>     file(s), but you can remove the explicit -ly linking from random
>     utility program Makefile's... basically your
>     remove_-ly_from_Makefiles.diff patch without the sys.mk change.

OK, I made this change to the patch (same URL.)  I left -ly in the
crunch conf too.

>     Note that this might bite us in the ass later on if bison/yacc
>     start producing calls to auxillary routines that are expected to
>     exist (be added to) liby, we'd have to add all those -ly's back,
>     but it isn't a problem now so go ahead.

OK, thanks - I doubt they will, as it's a bit un-POSIX-like, but who
knows.

Regardless, to help mitigate this sort of confusion in the future, I
made another patch:

  http://catseye.webhop.net/DragonFlyBSD/patch/yacc_man_ylib.diff

This patch adds a brief description of liby to the FILES section in
yacc.1, and adds an MLINK from liby.3 to yacc.1.  Not much, but better
than nothing, which is what we have now.  Any thoughts on this?

-Chris
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]