Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email protected]> writes: > In short, i don't think an SONAME bump is functionally necessary just > for introduction of versioned symbols, though lack of an SONAME bump may > introduce some cosmetic changes for people who don't rebuild against the > newer version.
And in this case, I think the cosmetic problem is less important, since I'd expect most users to upgrade from 2.7.1 to 3.1, and never install 3.0. But I guess, for the same reason, another soname change should also be relatively painless. Do you agree? Hmm. So if we conclude that it really would make a better interface with extended base64 contexts, we could do that and bump the soname. (And API changes are a different matter, I think it is important to not break existing source code using base64. So the idea is that code using base64_init and friends should only need a recompile to work with nettle-3.1). >> Does anyone know if applications are using base64_encode_raw, despite >> it's status as undocumented? > > in the debian project, it looks like there are code examples from aria2 > that use base64_encode_raw, and it's also used in rtmpdump's librtmp: Thanks for looking this up. Seems like we should keep (and document?) base64_encode_raw unchanged. And we then have to come up with a new name for a base64_encode_raw_with_alphabet function. And doing a similar search for base64_encode_group luckily gives no matches at all, outside of nettle. Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
