build: Move interfaces/* to libbitcoin_server #14204

1. 
   laanwj commented at 7:38 am on September 12, 2018: member

   Move interfaces/* from libbitcoin_util to libbitcoin_server.

   Usage of these is shared between bitcoind and bitcoin-qt. It is unnecessary for them to be linked against the other utilities. Also semantically they belong with the server/node, I think.

2. build: Move interfaces/* to libbitcoin_server

   These are shared between bitcoind and bitcoin-qt. It is unnecessary for
   them to be linked against the other utilities.

   e0664f7f54
3. fanquake added the label Build system on Sep 12, 2018
4. 
   ken2812221 commented at 7:39 am on September 12, 2018: contributor

   Concept ACK
5. 
   DrahtBot commented at 10:28 am on September 12, 2018: member

   • #14111 (index: Create IndexRunner class for activing indexes. by jimpo)
   • #14035 (Utxoscriptindex by mgrychow)

   If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

6. 
   promag commented at 1:05 pm on September 12, 2018: member

   How about multi-process? Are the interface headers enough for the wallet process?
7. 
   jnewbery commented at 1:07 pm on September 12, 2018: member

   Great! tACK e0664f7f54aa9cf99ba31ca4bd9de1db0a9310a4
8. MarcoFalke added the label Refactoring on Sep 12, 2018
9. 
   laanwj commented at 1:15 pm on September 12, 2018: member

   How about multi-process? Are the interface headers enough for the wallet process?

   I’d say we cross that bridge when we have to. For now, this makes sense.

   And also in that case, another library might have to be defined that has compilation units shared between the wallet process producer/consumer. Even then these things don’t belong in the generic util library.

10. 
    jnewbery commented at 1:20 pm on September 12, 2018: member

    I’d say we cross that bridge when we have to. For now, this makes sense.

    :+1: no sense in holding up obvious improvements now for something that may or may not come in the future.

11. 
    ryanofsky commented at 3:03 pm on September 12, 2018: member

    utACK e0664f7f54aa9cf99ba31ca4bd9de1db0a9310a4
12. 
    promag commented at 3:11 pm on September 12, 2018: member

    Yeap agree! utACK e0664f7.
13. laanwj merged this on Sep 12, 2018
14. laanwj closed this on Sep 12, 2018

    ---

15. laanwj referenced this in commit 8f464549c4 on Sep 12, 2018
16. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit d396fcdab4 on Jun 27, 2021
17. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit 4ca1f83793 on Jun 28, 2021
18. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit bbf2442feb on Jun 29, 2021
19. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit 2291ab7e59 on Jul 1, 2021
20. MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
laanwj ken2812221 DrahtBot promag jnewbery ryanofsky

Labels
Refactoring Build system