tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: liblzf incompatibility


can you reply?


> hi,
>> hi,
>>> 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.
> any progress?
> if you don't want to remove it, how about renaming it?
> YAMAMOTO Takashi
>>> 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
>>> decision.
>> i think the option is for users who embed the library into their
>> applications, not for general purpose OSes like us.
>> YAMAMOTO Takashi
>>> Thor

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index