On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 22:26:51 +0900 
 "T.SHIOZAKI" <tshiozak@astec.co.jp> wrote:

 > libdl does not always make cleaner Makefile for user programs and
 > user libraries, since all platforms do not provide libdl.so.
 > For instance, since FreeBSD-ELF has already included dl* in libc,
 > it will probably not provide libdl.so forever.
 > However, libdl will make cleaner Makefile for libc.
 > 
 > There is probably not much difference whether provide libdl or not.
 > However, I don't prefer to increase the number of libraries, since
 > it may make maching problem.  If libc depends on libdl, it seems not
 > necessary to separate into libdl.  And, I guess that if we provide libdl,
 > then we should change the soname and/or the major revision number of libc.

Well, I'm buy your argument that they should be in libc.

Anyone have any real objections?

        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov>