John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 04:20:43PM -0400, Will Cohen wrote:
>>This was some discussion at Red Hat. I don't know if it there is any
> Oh OK.
>>Another concern is the name collisions in the libraries. There is
>>already a /usr/lib/libutil.a. I would suggest that the name libutil.a
>>mutate to liboputil.a. While I am at it libutil++.a becomes
>>liboputil++.a, libabi.a becomes libopabi.a, and libpp.a becomes liboppp.a
> We don't need that. libutil and friends are never supposed to be
> separately installed libraries. We would basically have two installed
> libraries: libodb and liboprofile. Or something similar
Having a liboprofile is fine. I was just starting out with the libraries
that were currently available.
> Phil, they'd basically have to have a process-level GPL boundary to be
> able to link to us.
> And I agree with you about not going the BSD route, especially given
> that profiler that's basically a shell around Mikael's perfctr, that
> goes for 600 USD
Yes, I understand the concern about closed source software taking
advantage of the interfaces, but not providing anything in return. This
is one of the reasons that GCC doesn't provide a "gcc library" or dump
out or read in complete RTL.