In message <cahej-s4wb1rpqzyegaqre28kdud5zvyumerajl9fq1qtdvi...@mail.gmail.com> on Fri, 21 Sep 2018 21:17:12 +1000, Tim Hudson <t...@cryptsoft.com> said:
> i.e. OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER should be X.Y.Z So you mean we'd lose the integer form entirely? Hey, I have zero issue with that! However, that's going to make life hard for everyone that wants to be able to build against different OpenSSL versions and use this macro in pre-processing their source. I don't think we'll get many happy faces with such a move (talk about an API break and making life hard on people). I hope I misunderstand what you're going for... (hey, if we want to drop that integer, or make it something different, maybe we should follow the POSIX example and make that YYYYMM (year+month) of the release? It's incremental and certainly usable with pre-processing! .... and less hard on our users than dropping the number altogether) > and OPENSSL_VERSION_TEXT should be "X.Y.Z [-patch][+buildmeta]" and > that would be a simple, direct, and expected mapping to OpenSSL for > semantic versioning. Semantic versioning says MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, i.e. Z would be the patch number. Why you want to have the patch indicator where semantic versioning has pre-release information (which is exactly what we do with the -dev and -prex suffixes), I do not understand. -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
