On 18/05/2013 02:19, "Pete Batard" <p...@akeo.ie> wrote: > As a matter of fact, some unlikely people have already made a >first step towards that [1]... ;) ... >[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
Interesting reading, thanks. I don't know these people but I formed my opinion about them from the reading and based on that I would not call them or their behaviour as unlikely but typical ;-) Regardless, this paper talks about 'in kernel interfaces' whereas libusb(x) falls logivally into the 'kernel to userspace interface' category of things IMO which according to the paper is very stable over time and will not break. And again IMO that is the way it should be. So that paper seems to support the API/ABI compatibility 'bullshit' in this case. In any case I would vote to keep 1.x API/ABI compatible, be it nonsense or not. br Kusti > > This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. We will not be liable for direct, indirect, special or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on or as of transmission of this e-mail in general. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/alienvault_d2d _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
