moving buffer allocation schemes from busybox.h to libbb.h

Robert P. J. Day rpjday at mindspring.com
Sat Apr 1 10:40:22 UTC 2006


On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Bernhard Fischer wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 07:24:16PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> >On Friday 31 March 2006 5:40 pm, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I want to move the buffer allocation schemes from busybox.h to libbb.h.
> >>
> >> That way, we could use the RESERVE_CONFIG_{U,}BUFFER /
> >> RELEASE_CONFIG_BUFFER also in libbb.
> >
> >You mean so code in libbb can use it?  Sounds reasonable.
> >
> >> The following files will have to be changed to include the correct .h
> >> (libbb.h instead of busybox.h):
> >> $ grep -l busybox.h libbb/*
> >> libbb/bb_echo.c
> >> libbb/copyfd.c
> >> libbb/copy_file.c
> >> libbb/get_terminal_width_height.c
> >> libbb/md5.c
> >> libbb/messages.c
> >> libbb/sha1.c
> >> libbb/xgetlarg.c
> >
> >Actually busybox.h includes libbb.h, but in general libbb/*.c
> >should probably include libbb.h rather than busybox.h anyway.
>
> Ok. So i'll do that unless somebody has a reasonable different
> proposal.

not that i want to rub this in just a little but, given that
"busybox.h" already includes "libbb.h", why not just make every single
source file include "busybox.h"?  it will certainly work, right?  and
that's the rationale i've been hearing for the last day or so -- it's
easy, trying to clean up the header files is just addressing
theoretical problems that don't really exist, etc, etc.

so why the sudden desire to have stuff in libbb/*.c include the more
appropriate libbb.h rather than the more all-encompassing busybox.h?
exactly what problem is this addressing?  hmmmmmmm?

rday

p.s.  why, yes, i *am* just a little pissed that i got slapped around
so soundly for a suggestion that seems to be getting such a friendly
reception now that *someone* *else* has made it.




More information about the busybox mailing list