On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 10:26:51PM +0900, T.SHIOZAKI wrote:
 
> libdl does not always make cleaner Makefile for user programs and
> user libraries, since all platforms do not provide libdl.so.
> For instance, since FreeBSD-ELF has already included dl* in libc,
> it will probably not provide libdl.so forever.
> However, libdl will make cleaner Makefile for libc.
> 
> There is probably not much difference whether provide libdl or not.
> However, I don't prefer to increase the number of libraries, since
> it may make maching problem.  If libc depends on libdl, it seems not
> necessary to separate into libdl.  And, I guess that if we provide libdl,
> then we should change the soname and/or the major revision number of libc.

I do like libdl, but as you say, moving dl* to libdl is basically
an interface change to libc (although the functions aren't in libc itself).

I would therefore prefer to have it in libc. As far as I'm concerned,
it can be checked in soon, so that it is included for 1.5.

- Frank