busybox.h vs libbb.h

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 08:21:59PM -0500, 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

I'd go with the original idea, unless someone has a better idea.

So: libbb/*.c include libbb.h only, applets include busybox.h.

Whether applets shall include both libbb.h and afterwards busybox.h and
we don't include libbb.h in busybox.h at all is something i don't care
much about ATM.