From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: About Guile crypto support Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:20:55 +0100 Message-ID: <87pq07uuqg.fsf@pobox.com> References: <1359896146.2754.19.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <871ucvof60.fsf@gnu.org> <1360032192.2754.61.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <87mwvisqwj.fsf@gnu.org> <878v6yojxg.fsf@gnu.org> <87sj55bjxz.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwvdwhcs.fsf@pobox.com> <87zjzd4br8.fsf@tines.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1360570863 6583 80.91.229.3 (11 Feb 2013 08:21:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:21:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , guile-devel@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 11 09:21:24 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U4odg-0003qf-M5 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:21:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60939 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U4odN-0001fV-CS for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:21:05 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34470) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U4odK-0001fN-Bz for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:21:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U4odI-0004GU-SF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:21:02 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:55011 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U4odI-0004GD-Oa; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:21:00 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEA9AA891; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:20:59 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=TZzV9PuWmLegwncTxcjFum/fHNs=; b=xrYdMc qa8qoHE5NV0a3pXzmTEx5nwxIl9KIA5sL0qmbBBbqEq/+i6BVn27pSU/7SINCBRh k/r+V/sfkVUQQqgfSFBYUql5mUgHQqL4wqKo/wlueOR3w+8A6GPqFdiQDm38Q5FD 3TX2sbzL1vO7SqN5LDsxUhTJhWKPuMaxlBfb0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Rp/CsF4xxj+QWo8iDblaomAf4IBRRf+U 5vsNRuX4NeolC0gQSv2NM6aeDWSwWbJWL6AeYpSWOKvMWHF2NSVA3+y4AcbYdisK av1QhYP0/cnW1uj8yAqRRVhHRelUeonx+8k6v4ShMFHFUR5RzBUrAi4rwei1WFSw IyWs63pEqT4= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49D1A890; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:20:59 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2AE77A88F; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:20:59 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87zjzd4br8.fsf@tines.lan> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Sat, 09 Feb 2013 12:50:51 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F71C3630-7423-11E2-9DC8-5E8F0E5B5709-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 208.72.237.25 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:15722 Archived-At: Howdy, On Sat 09 Feb 2013 18:50, Mark H Weaver writes: > Andy Wingo writes: > >> I have the feeling that we should implement our own FOO function >> without libBAR. > > Wouldn't it be better to fix these problems in libBAR, to the benefit > of all its users, than for each of its users to duplicate its > functionality within their own projects? This is a nice description of the advantages of shared libraries in general, but to be fair we should list the disadvantages as well: - Coordination cost (working with upstream on bugs/features) - QA cost (does the user have a bug-free libfoo or not?) - Runtime cost (another shared library) - Extensibility cost (does using the library prevent us from making extensions to functionality in the area that the library solves?) So I think the discussion about external dependencies should be, "does this dependency pay for itself?" For libgc, gmp, libffi, and libunistring, the answer for me is "yes, definitely". For ltdl, my instinct is "no". Just MHO :) Andy -- http://wingolog.org/