RFC: removing talloc for good?

This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.

A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.

Holger Freyther holger at freyther.de
Sat Nov 21 19:32:41 UTC 2015


> On 21 Nov 2015, at 19:18, Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> wrote:
> 


> But in any case, your mail was not a response to my question.  What do
> you think about it?

Was there another question than if we object? I do not object and I think using
the system talloc is the right thing to do. I was surprised that the Fedora package
didn't raise this issue.




>> I think we should remove <osmocom/core/talloc.h> at the same time.
> 
> I think we should keep it as a convenience wrapper just containing a
> single line of "#include <talloc.h>".  _maybe_ with a #warning together. 
> 
> This makes sense for people wanting to build e.g. older branches with
> new libosmocore.  That wrapper-header doesn't hurt and helps people
> avoid broken builds.

hmm. okay. But new code should use talloc.h directly then?


holger


More information about the OpenBSC mailing list