[Xorg] Xevie addition to libXext
otaylor at redhat.com
Mon Aug 2 06:52:16 PDT 2004
On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 17:05, Keith Packard wrote:
> Around 22 o'clock on Jul 31, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
> > > Added files:
> > > xc/lib/Xext/:
> > > Xevie.c
> > This addition requires a minor library revision number increment.
> I think it's better to have separate libraries for each extension; can we
> do that in this case? What do other people think?
There are tradeoffs either way. Separate libraries has the (somewhat
small) advantage that dependencies of apps on the new library are more
visible to tools such as RPM. And does help keep maintainership modular.
But anybody considering such a split has to be aware of a fundamental
property of ELF shared libraries: adding symbols does not increase
the per-symbol cost of resolution, adding libraries does.
In rough terms ELF symbol resolution is specified as a linked list of
* Is the code going to be maintained separately? Is it going to have
separate releases? separate security fixes? a different set of
people handling bug reports. If code should be in a different
package, it needs to be in a separate shared library. I'm not
sure that the answer to this should ever be yes for such a small
chunk of code as XEVIE.
* Does the code have different sets of dependencies? If a library
brings in new dependency libraries that's often a good reason
to keep it separate. (E.g., libpangoxft is a separate shared
library from libpango because it pulls in the X libraries.)
If the answer to both is no, then making a separate shared object
seems to have little value.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the xorg