> > I would recommend that you provide as the first variable in all of the 
> > structs
> > an unsigned int called 'version'. This way if the structs are extended they
> > would be backwards compatible and there is an easy way to identify which
> > version of structs they are.
> > 
> 
> Erm, given the amount of programs which will probably end up using this (not 
> all that much) a distro should be able to easily rebuild all those in case of 
> an ABI change and thus a soname bump. I understand what you are trying to say 
> here, but IMHO the added complexity and ugliness is not worth it.

I disagree. The ABI in a distro is a holy thing. When a Linux distro releases 
their
libraries (look for example at libvirt), they can't modify it for the next 7 
years
(sure they can do it underneath the covers, but look at the Red Hat kernel with
those #ifdef __GENKSYSM__ to work-around this).

I am curious to understand what is complex and ugly about it? Could you be
more specific please.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"open-iscsi" group.
To post to this group, send email to open-iscsi@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
open-iscsi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to