Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <n.mavrogiannopou...@gmail.com> writes: > Niels, I'm not sure however if that was your intention. Didn't you > want to deprecate some of the _nettle symbols as well like > _nettle_secp_256r1?
I was thinking of doing something simple, with nettle_* symbols going into the supported ABI (symbol version NETTLE_@LIBNETTLE_MAJOR@), and all _nettle_* symbols getting symbol version NETTLE_@LIBNETTLE_MAJOR@_@LIBNETTLE_MINOR@, which explicitly makes them *not* binary compatible between minor versions. I think it's helpful that ABI status corresponds to the names used in the source and header files, both for maintenance and for user documentation. What do you think? Are there any of the current _nettle_* symbols that should be in the advertised API (and hence renamed)? Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid 368C6677. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list nettle-bugs@lists.lysator.liu.se http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
