Robert Story wrote:
TA> Otherwise, shall we rather use an SONAME like "libnetsnmp.so.5.<minor>"
TA> (e.g. libnetsnmp.so.5.2) and thus require applications to relink when
TA> upgrading from 5.x to 5.y?
I think that sounds like a good idea, as 5.x vs 5.n is usually a significant
release.
Makes us two. However, this'd be a quite significant decision, so more
feedback/votes are highly appreciated. Also, if we'd decide to do it,
shall we start it from 5.3 onwards? Or for all upcoming 5.[123] releases?
TA> Comments appreciated. Also see bug #1256697 for a related bug report
TA> (although I'm not yet convinced it applies).
I'd be willing to bet it applies. I'm guessing that if one did a diff between
all the header files, there have been some structure size changes.
Based on the feedback to date, it indeed looks like an ABI issue. One
more reason to change.
+Thomas
--
Thomas Anders (thomas.anders at blue-cable.de)
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
