[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?
From: |
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos |
Subject: |
Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6? |
Date: |
Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:56:23 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 |
On 02/19/2011 04:30 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>>> That's a nice question. This API is mostly interesting to people
>>>> who are porting gnutls to another crypto library. We might
>>> An API is an API, is an API.
>> Indeed but it doesn't have to be stable. That part was intended to
>> change often by design.
> I don't think that is wise in the long run -- if we want people to use
> the APIs they must be stable. If they aren't intended to be stable, it
> is better to mark them as private functions by prefixing them with
> _gnutls instead or similar.
Indeed, but the API is already there. If we now add an underscore, then
we would break ABI... We could modify them in version 3 that breaks
the ABI anyway.
regards,
Nikos
- ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?, Andreas Metzler, 2011/02/17
- Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos, 2011/02/17
- Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?, Andreas Metzler, 2011/02/18
- Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos, 2011/02/19
- Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?, Werner Koch, 2011/02/19
- Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos, 2011/02/19
- Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?, Simon Josefsson, 2011/02/19
- Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?,
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <=
- Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?, Werner Koch, 2011/02/20
- Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?, Simon Josefsson, 2011/02/21
- Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos, 2011/02/21
Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?, Werner Koch, 2011/02/18