On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 12:30 +0300, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: > On 12:19 Sun 27 Jul , Tziporet Koren wrote: > > Betsy Zeller wrote: > >> >From what I've heard, there are currently applications using: > >> - libopensm > >> - libosmcomp > >> - libosmvendor > >> - libibcommon > >> Now that it is well understood that these libraries are intended to be > >> private, developers can move away from using them. But, in the meantime > >> it would be helpful if any major planned changes in these could be > >> posted to the list. > >> > > Sasha - please comment on the request from Betsy > > Sure, we are posting even minor changes :) . Basically I'm fine if > developers use (or will use) those libraries, important point is that > they should not expect "stable API" there. > > >> I've also heard it suggested that it would be easier to avoid some > >> issues with private libraries if they were not in the standard compiler > >> search path. There are pros and cons to deciding to move them, but I > >> thought I would mention the suggestion. > >> > >> > > Library owners: Any thoughts here? > > I don't like this idea (as well as this word - "private" :)). Some > packages in OFED already share those libraries (for instance ibutils uses > libopensm, etc.). Also somebody may want to use it - let people to decide.
I'll second Sasha's opinion here. Being in the default library search
path is fine, even for private libraries. The pain of having them
outside the default search path far outweighs the benefit of them not
being readily available to people that don't understand they are
private.
--
Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford
Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
