Re: [dev] libdraw development

From: Connor Lane Smith <>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 23:34:38 +0100

On Friday, September 3, 2010, yy <> wrote:
> It doesn't. libdraw uses a custom protocol to speak with devdraw,
> which is a separate program and the only one in p9p which really
> depends on xlib.

I'd still consider that a dependency, but a bit crazier. But fair
enough I guess?

> I understand what's the idea behind yours
> libdraw, and I agree it is a fair goal but, please, change the name.

We may go with the Edison option, though I don't know yet. Last time I
brought this up it came out in favour of libdraw.

> By the way, why a file per function? I think that's crazy, and don't
> fit very well with the rest of everything-in-a-big-file suckless
> projects.

One file per function means a binary will only link the objects it
needs, which helps keep binary size down when statically linking. Of
course, programs needn't worry since they're guaranteed to link
everything. I believe this is fairly standard.

Received on Sat Sep 04 2010 - 00:34:38 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Sep 04 2010 - 00:36:02 CEST