Hi, On 04/23/2012 01:53 PM, Pete Batard wrote: > On 2012.04.23 11:57, Kustaa Nyholm wrote: > I think Hans' and probably Michael's views are mostly with regards to a > libusb compiled app, using a shared libusb library that has been > replaced with libusbx. > > Since we're dealing with extra field, compilation should always break > and force a developer to update, so the crash is only expected to apply > for apps that were using a shared libusb library and where that shared > library has been replaced with libusbx. >
Correct. > This is of course something we want to consider (officially our goal is > to be a "drop-in" replacement), but the question is how far we are > willing to go for such a scenario, and what the implications are. Right, as said in my previous mail this is a case by case thing. But in this case we can easily add compatibility without a significant cost, hence my vote *in this case* goes to adding the 2 fields. The rc field is even somewhat useful for apps who want to print a fully qualified libusb version string. The descr field is silly, but adding it and always making it the empty string doesn't really cost as anything while gaining ABI compat with the libusb 1.0.9 release. Regards, Hans ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
