On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 06:31:36PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:04:48AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote: > > --- apt-pkg/tagfile.h 2006-09-30 20:50:41 +0000 > > +++ apt-pkg/tagfile.h 2006-09-30 21:35:25 +0000 > > @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ > > unsigned long Size; > > > > bool Fill(); > > + bool Resize(); > > This would (unnecessarily) change the ABI of libapt, requiring a shlibs > versioned bump. Fill() neither should've been part of the ABI (it makes > no sense to use it externally), but it is at the moment. > > This symbol should instead be placed in a "private:" section of the class > (without any explicit definition, symbols are public).
For c++ the default access (if nothing else is specified) is "private:". According to http://developer.kde.org/documentation/other/binarycompatibility.html it is ok to add new non-virtual functions and won't break the ABI. > Otherwise, the patch logic is as far as I can see, correct. Thanks for reviewing it! Cheers, Michael -- Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question. - Neo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]