Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:27:47 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG>, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/lib/libreadline/readline Makefile Message-ID: <20041018092747.GB59835@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20041018092347.GA59835@nagual.pp.ru> References: <200410180836.i9I8afRS060144@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041018090314.GA86525@ip.net.ua> <20041018090550.GA59302@nagual.pp.ru> <20041018091004.GC86525@ip.net.ua> <20041018091303.GC59302@nagual.pp.ru> <20041018091903.GD86525@ip.net.ua> <20041018092347.GA59835@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 01:23:47PM +0400, Andrey Chernov wrote: > In theory we can switch to another *curses, or make termcap as separate= =20 > library (even derived from ncurses, subset) to save lots of static linkin= g=20 > space. In all such cases in my variant we don't need to touch anything,= =20 > but in yours mass Makefiles rewriting required. In other words: libraries and applications are linked to termcap, without= =20 knowing its implementation details. It is good, because things can be=20 changed on the fly without any editing. But you insist that they MUST know= =20 implementation details. I see no reason for it. --=20 Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/ --yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iQCVAwUBQXOMk+JgpPLZnQjrAQHPVQP/ZeBR/UuEQB9eLYc81qNxlEXIHng7eKB+ ba4Dn5R59aFDT4J2SzZGUQMtcqCxaPuIv60rC+MwtVAQIK5HuhNLI9PAzizU0LL7 uokCvoJN/+igJmIqFZ1UmgBdKxes/CPmF7xeOilcObEFqETuSnB3QTzbdYd5p4Qh mjW3a0y3Kz4= =WD46 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041018092747.GB59835>