Re: Glib

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:56:11PM -0800, Evan Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:23:29PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > It would be nice if Glib could be built into a small C library than only
> > had ADT's in it. This way, many small projects could take advantage of
> > these data types, without loosing portability. The goal of CGDB is to
> > port anywhere that GDB ports.
> > 
> > If I was to change Glib, so that you could do ./configure --only_adt or
> > something like that, and it would make a smaller library that only
> > contained the ADT's, would this be considered acceptable?
> [note: i'm not one of the people who would make this decision]
> Most users are going to install glib through a binary package.  This
> would require two separate upstream packages for glib, and the ensuing
> confusion is enough to scare both users and packagers away.
> I'm not sure it's worth the effort.  A stripped glib is only half a meg
> anyway.

I am not proposing to change Glib at all. A normal ./configure would
build Glib just the way it is.

What I am proposing is that Glib could be configured in a way that would
create a library that only contained ADT's. 

The reason behind this is that CGDB doesn't need to depend on
everything in GLib. Actually, CGDB only needs the ADT's, which is
probably ~10% of Glib.

Bob Rossi

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]