On Fri, 17.02.12 16:47, Dave Reisner ([email protected]) wrote: > Based on the premise that we shouldn't develop a case of NIH, link > against a library whose sole purpose in life is parsing tab files.
Hmmm, using the glibc api setmntent() is hardly NIH, is it? I am not strictly against this, but I'd like to have good reasons for this. Right now I see on the side against this: - adds another dependency - code isn't really any shorter than right now On the pro side: - ?? Dave, Karel, can you fill in any reasons here? If not I think we shouldn't apply this patch... > Curious if something like this is wanted -- it's 90% complete, but there's no > sense in finishing it up if it's not interesting. I'd like to be able to get > rid of the fstab_node_to_udev_node() function but that would likely require > linking against libblkid in cryptsetup-generator. I am not sure about this? What's wrong with fstab_node_to_udev_node()? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
