Re: Future of src/utils

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Future of src/utils
Date: 2002-07-17 22:32:29
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0207172100190.9047-100000@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian writes:

> Can we move them to src/port rather than src/utils? Port makes more
> sense to me because that's what they are. Maybe is should be called
> src/libc?

Well, there is a bit of a history in picking a really silly name for this
library. GCC calls it libiberty, Kerberos calls it libroken. Make up
your own. "port" makes sense, though.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-07-17 22:32:50 Re: utils C files
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-07-17 22:31:31 Re: Future of src/utils