version 1.18.0 SONAME #300

New issue

Closed

opened 2017-09-27 05:33:37 -05:00 by sjaeckel · 4 comments

sjaeckel commented

2017-09-27 05:33:37 -05:00

(Migrated from github.com)

While passing the RC4 to several distros it was discovered that the libraries' ABI version should be bumped to 1:0 because of the modified structs. That was discovered while testing against dropbear.

Is there a reason we should invest time to keep 1.18.0 ABI compatible?

One reason could be that our plans to further extend the library would lead to an ABI 2:0 in the next release...

I'm now highlighting some persons whose opinion I'd like to hear resp. a 👍 for okay to bump.

@apjanke
@buggywhip
@fperrad
@jforissier (I guess you don't care about the ABI version as you're always static linking :) )
@karel-m
@lvc
@mkj
@rofl0r
@stapelberg

The persons mentioned can happily trigger more people to vote.

While passing the RC4 to several distros it was discovered that the libraries' ABI version should be bumped to `1:0` because of the modified structs. That was discovered while testing against dropbear. Is there a reason we should invest time to keep 1.18.0 ABI compatible? One reason could be that our plans to further extend the library would lead to an ABI `2:0` in the next release... I'm now highlighting some persons whose opinion I'd like to hear resp. a :+1: for okay to bump. @apjanke @buggywhip @fperrad @jforissier (I guess you don't care about the ABI version as you're always static linking :) ) @karel-m @lvc @mkj @rofl0r @stapelberg The persons mentioned can happily trigger more people to vote.

👍 5

stapelberg commented

2017-09-27 05:52:25 -05:00

(Migrated from github.com)

In Debian, we have chrony and dropbear to link against the new ABI version, i.e. the effort is quite small. No objection from my end to the ABI change, hence.

jforissier commented

2017-09-27 12:18:34 -05:00

(Migrated from github.com)