At 12:24 PM 10/25/2005, Howard Chu wrote: >There are some issues. Read through this thread >http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/200510/msg00117.html for >background.
I note that as the libraries includes deprecated interfaces regardless of how LDAP_DEPRECATED is defined. LDAP_DEPRECATED impacts which interfaces are exposed in the API, not the ABI. Pradosh Adoni wrote: > Any comments ? I do note that its kind of odd to talk here in terms of ABIs as the project releases OpenLDAP Software in source form only. It should be obvious that two independent builds of the same release of OpenLDAP Software can easily have incompatible ABIs, though their APIs should be compatible. For instance, a libraries built with -m64 v. -m32 have different ABIs. Likewise for numerous other build environment differences. It should be clear that we do change APIs on occasion: adding, deleting, or modifying interfaces. This has an obvious impact on ABIs. Our general rule is to avoid non-backwards compatible changes with a release series, such as 2.3.X. Additions are normally allowed until the series is feature frozen. Deletions and modifications are generally deferred to the next release series. I note that we do managing library versioning for each minor release series independently of other series. That is, we change the soname with each minor release as we expect programs compiled for one minor release to be recompiled before using a different minor release. Personally, I think it would unwise to include ABIs into a standard that are not well documented and for which are known to have significant design problems, such as bad error handling. But, hey, bad error handling in POSIX and other interface standards is par for the course. I also think it premature to standardize an ABI before dependent ABIs are standardized. That is, you should consider standardizing SASL, TLS, and the like, as well as their dependencies, first. Kurt
