[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: liblzf incompatibility
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:45:11PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 01:58:12AM +0000, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>>> > hi,
>>> > is there a near-future plan to use liblzf for any in-tree stuff?
>>> > otherwise i'd suggest to disable it because it only causes problems.
>>> > see PR/46426.
>>> I have code that uses it, both in userspace and the kernel, but I never
>>> checked it in because I ran into a build problem with src/common. Let me
>>> see what I can do about both issues.
if you don't want to remove it, how about renaming it?
>> I am looking at the PR, and I don't really think I agree that our liblzf
>> is "incompatible with the upstream version".
>> Unfortunately, the upstream version can be compiled with either of two
>> different APIs. I think the bug is actually in programs whose autoconf
>> logic detects liblzf without detecting which API is in use.
> as far as i know, there's no reasonable way to detect the compile-time
> option. so assuming the default is reasonable.
>> I chose the API that was more general, which I do think was the correct
> i think the option is for users who embed the library into their
> applications, not for general purpose OSes like us.
> YAMAMOTO Takashi
Main Index |
Thread Index |