busybox.h vs libbb.h
Rob Landley
rob at landley.net
Sat Apr 1 17:21:54 UTC 2006
On Friday 31 March 2006 8:21 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 31 March 2006 20:19, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Friday 31 March 2006 8:11 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Friday 31 March 2006 19:25, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > > On Friday 31 March 2006 5:58 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > On Friday 31 March 2006 17:40, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> > > > > > I want to move the buffer allocation schemes from busybox.h to
> > > > > > libbb.h.
> > > > >
> > > > > did we ever reach a consensus as to what should be using busybox.h
> > > > > / libbb.h ?
> > > >
> > > > The original idea was that applets should include busybox.h, and
> > > > library code in libbb should include libbb.h.
> > >
> > > you say "original" ... that implies that current behavior does not and
> > > maybe should not match this ...
> >
> > No, just that it may have drifted a bit over time. For example, his
> > proposed checkin is switching several libbb files from busybox.h to
> > libbb.h, which goes back towards the original idea.
>
> can we pick one ? it'd be trivial to update the build tests to check for
> this -mike
You mean merge them?
I suppose so. I vaguely remember looking at it and one point and there was a
reason they were separate, but I don't remember it being an insurmountable
reason. You're welcome to try. The logical one to keep would be
busybox.h...
Rob
--
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
More information about the busybox
mailing list