> On Sep 21, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Matthias St. Pierre
> <matthias.st.pie...@ncp-e.com> wrote:
>
> I like Richard's approach (with the '8' or another number) and I don't think
> it is
> contradicting semantic versioning. Maybe a good compromise between your two
> opposing views would be to make the encoding irrelevant to our users by
> introducing
> version check macros like
>
> OPENSSL_MAKE_VERSION(maj,min,patch) and
> OPENSSL_VERSION_AT_LEAST(maj,min)
>
> (note: the patch level was omitted from the second macro on purpose)
>
> which enable the application programmer to write code like
>
>
> #if OPENSSL_MAKE_VERSION(2,0,0) <= OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER
> ...
> #endif
The macros would help new software, and should be added, but existing
software should continue to work with the version-dependent bits
unmodified. To that end, Richard's encoding does the job (modulo a
minor quibble over the high bit vs. just an epoch nibble of 0x2 or 0x3).
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
