On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 11:32 -0400, Daniel Macks wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:05:10PM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 16:43, Rodrigo Moya wrote: > > [...] > > > So, one thing that has been on my mind for long is to get those small > > > libraries and merge them together > > Fewer library packages would also be a good thing for packagers. Don't > have to do as much dependency tracking and explicit versioning of > dependencies. OTOH... > > > [...] > > > When the library grows, we could separate it into different .so's > > > > Don't do that (the separation). If you merge the different libraries > > together, you'll merge the sections together. As they must be stored > > with a page granularity (4k) you'll earn 2k by merged library on > > average, plus less time spent in ld.so for resolving inter-library > > dependencies (and yet another memory win). If you separate that into > > different .so's you loose what you just won. > > Also, please remember that every time you move a symbol that is part > of the public interface from one library file to another, the soname > of the former-location and new-location shared libraries changes. Even > if it's all in the same "library package". And changing the soname of > just some of the shared libraries in a package that contains many > shared libs is a packager nightmare.
This is a long term concern, however gnome-desktop isn't even part of the platform (which is another problem IMHO) so there are no compat guarantees in place. -JP -- JP Rosevear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Novell, Inc. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
