Are both of these meant to be public libraries, installed on the user systems, and available in .so variant as well for 3rd party development and public dynamic linking? Or are these private internal libraries, which are installed as public runtime only, simply to share code between the utils, but otherwise provide no abi stability and will forever remain libfoo.so.0? Or should these even be a noinst_ libraries (~= Libtool Convenience Libraries), and are simply intermediate by-products? I'm asking because despite compiling shared & static variants of these libraries, and "shared linked" and "static linked" variants of the utils, it appears that all utilities are statically linking against libbtrfs/libbtrfsutils. Thus no binaries nor bindings, dynamically link against neither libbtrfs nor libbtrfsutil. Tweaking the makefile to use libs_shared variable instead of libs or libs_static, results in slightly smaller binaries, dynamically linked against libbtrfs/libbtrfsutil. But it is hard to tell if this is a bug/mistake, or an intentional feature. -- Regards, Dimitri. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
