Hi, 2013/1/20 Jaap Keuter <[email protected]>
> On 01/18/2013 08:05 PM, Evan Huus wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Bálint Réczey <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I think we did a very good job in maintaining backward compatibility > >> in 1.6.x and 1.8.x releases [1]. > >> > >> In >1.6.1 there were no backward incompatible change in the 1.6.x > >> branch and on 1.8.x branch there were only one [2]. > >> It is caused by a fix [3] for bug 7348 [4]. > >> > >> IMHO while fixing the bug was clearly useful we could consider > >> reverting the fix on 1.8.x it to return to the original ABI in 1.8.5. > >> > >> What do you, developers think? What policy should we follow in case of > >> accidental ABI breakages? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Balint > >> > >> [1] http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/wireshark.html > >> [2] > http://upstream-tracker.org/compat_reports/wireshark/1.8.2_to_1.8.3/abi_compat_report.html > >> [3] > http://code.wireshark.org/git/?p=wireshark;a=commit;h=e5e09f70168e7534a91959255e558c8a5cd9991a > >> [4] https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7348 > > > > > In this particular case the bug is so minor that I have no problem > > with reverting it (I personally wouldn't have bothered back-porting it > > in the first place). > > > > In the general case I think we should try to avoid ABI breakage where > > possible, but not at the cost of crashers or security bugs. The very > > first google hit for many variants of 'libwireshark' or 'using > > libwireshark' is [1] which explains how it's not really usable in > > 3rd-party programs anyways. > > > > Tangentially, it would be nice if it were usable as a proper library > > in 3rd-party programs, but that's a lot of work somebody would have to > > do to get it in shape. > > > > Cheers, > > Evan > > > > [1] > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10308127/using-libwireshark-to-get-wireshark-functionality-programatically/10355701#10355701 > > > > > Well, the whole exercise to get the dissection engine nicely packed into a > lib > was (partly) because of returning questions about a 'stable' engine lib. > So we either do it properly or not at all. This bug falls into the category > 'nice to have' so should not lead to API/ABI breakage. > > Just my ¤0.02, > Jaap > Based on the supporting opinions I have added reverting the fix to the 1.8.5 queue. Cheers, Balint
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
