On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 14:19 -0700, Glenn Skinner wrote: > Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:07:04 -0400 > From: Sebastien Roy <Sebastien.Roy at sun.com> > Subject: Re: Deliver libgs.so shared library and Ghostscript > header files [PSARC/2009/417 FastTrack timeout 08/05/2009] > > On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 13:17 -0700, Daniel Hain wrote: > > Sebastien Roy wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> 4.5. Interfaces > > >> > > >> 4.5.1 Exported Interfaces: > > >> Interface Status > Description > > >> ------- ----- > --------- > ... > > >> /usr/bin/gsx Volatile > GTK+ frontend to libgs.so > > >> /usr/bin/gsc Volatile > command-line frontend to libgs.so > > ... > What is the intended use of /usr/bin/gsx and /usr/bin/gsc, then? > Are these implementation details of the API? If so, they should > be Project Private. > > No, that doesn't work. If they're Project Private, they should not > live in /usr/bin. > > It comes down to the question of whether or not people are expected to > invoke thse utilities directly. If so, then they can't be Project > Private. If not, then they don't belong in /usr/bin. > > I could go either way as far as the choice above ic concerned, but not > with the middle ground of Project Private things in /usr/bin.
I concur. If they are indeed implementation details of the API, then /usr/bin isn't the right place. If they are Public interfaces, then they should be documented somehow. -Seb
