2002-02-03 18:40:13

by Horst von Brand

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: crc32 and lib.a (was Re: [PATCH] nbd in 2.5.3 does

Keith Owens <[email protected]> said:

[...]

> I know, it makes it even harder to see what the initialization order
> is. Some are controlled by the Makefile/subdirs order, some by special
> calls in the code.

Just to repeat myself: This is clearly a problem for tsort(1): Give
restrictions of the form "This has to come after that" (perhaps a special
comment at the start of the file containing the init function?), tsort that
and pick the order out of the result. Should be a few lines of script. No
central repository for the dependencies, no messing around with half the
world to fix dependencies. Plus they become explicit, which they aren't
today.
--
Horst von Brand http://counter.li.org # 22616


2002-02-03 23:35:29

by Keith Owens

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: crc32 and lib.a (was Re: [PATCH] nbd in 2.5.3 does

On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 14:42:11 +0100,
Horst von Brand <[email protected]> wrote:
>Keith Owens <[email protected]> said:
>> I know, it makes it even harder to see what the initialization order
>> is. Some are controlled by the Makefile/subdirs order, some by special
>> calls in the code.
>
>Just to repeat myself: This is clearly a problem for tsort(1): Give
>restrictions of the form "This has to come after that" (perhaps a special
>comment at the start of the file containing the init function?), tsort that
>and pick the order out of the result. Should be a few lines of script. No
>central repository for the dependencies, no messing around with half the
>world to fix dependencies. Plus they become explicit, which they aren't
>today.

Just to repeat myself: That is exactly what I want to do. Linus vetoed
it in October 2000.