On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 14:16:32 -0400 "Keith Packard" <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I think there would be a load of value in starting with simple helpers > > which can be used independently of any larger scheme, tackling that > > list above. > > Yeah, a helper library that didn't enforce at tonne of policy and just > let the user glue things together on their own is probably going to be > more generally usable by existing and new systems. > > I definitely like the idea of stealing the best parts of all existing > systems and trying to make them work together. > > How many libraries we end up with isn't nearly as important to me as > making sure they work well together; common data types, similar style, > etc. > Hi, a bunch of helpers is the more attractive idea to me too. We just have to pay attention to API/ABI instability vs. usage: we should be able to both redesign the API at will to go forward, but people will not be happy using a library that breaks ABI all the time. Libweston worked around that issue by making all major release versions parallel-installable. That means literally all files or directories have the major number in their base name. Another option would be to have a static library only. I'm not sure which one would be more attractive. If going with static-library-only, then we probably one day want to convert into a dynamic library, and then the question of whether the ABI is stable enough will arise again. Using Meson should make the static-lib-only approach very easy, downstream projects could include liboutput as a git sub-module or such. That should eliminate the version dependency issues that builds might otherwise have. Thanks, pq
Attachment:
pgpZH85yIxoCO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
