On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Matthias Kilian <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 01:40:05PM +0200, David Coppa wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:47 AM, David Coppa <[email protected]> wrote: >> > We actually have SO_PEERCRED, so why not use it? >> > >> > I've also bumped SHARED_LIBS minor number: is this correct? >> >> I'd just like to know if is it right to only bump the minor number in >> this case... > > I don't see any reason for a major bump. The only visible change is that > assuan_getpeercred will succeed with your patch (if i understand the > code correctly).
Yes, you got it right. So, is the SHARED_LIBS minor bump right? Or no bump at all? ciao, david
