Re: Future of s6/s6-networking; package granularity

From: Colin Booth <cathexis_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 20:43:49 -0800

I think having identical handling for two different socket types split
between two different packages is fine, especially if one of those packages
(s6) is a dependency of another (s6-networking). I don't think it's crazy
unless you're duplicating the socket handling code itself and since s6 is a
dependency I'd imagine you could pull that into a library, either in s6 or
skalibs. I guess I'm seconding your suggestion to move libs6net and the
unix socket stuff into s6, then pull that in to s6-networking as necessary.

As for the overall layout of the s6 family of packages, I think the
granularity is ok as it stands, especially with this proposed change. One
gotcha you'll run into though is that now s6 will probably fail to compile
against musl without the the sabotage headers, at least if libs6net
requires netlink.

Cheers!
Received on Thu Jan 15 2015 - 04:43:49 UTC