On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:56:47PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
>
> On Sep 7, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> >
> >I also wonder whether we really want to install a new shared library -
> >it might be better to compile libsvn_fs_util as a static library and
> >link it into both libsvn_fs implementations. That might require some
> >changes to the build generator, though.
>
> I believe linking shared libraries against static libraries is not
> particularly portable. What would be the advantage here?
>
Good point, I'd forgotten about that. The advantage would be that the
libsvn_fs_util 'library' would become just an implementation detail,
which is what it is, rather than an externally-usable library for which
we were (even if only technically) providing a user-visible interface,
with potential for version mismatches, ABI compatibility considerations,
and so on.
In any case, I think there may be an easier way to achieve the same
thing: instead of adding a new library target to build.conf, just add
the libsvn_fs_util sources to both the libsvn_fs_{base,fs} targets;
that way they should just pull in the code directly. (Assuming that
doing so doesn't break a static build, of course).
Regards,
Malcolm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Sep 8 23:18:51 2006