On 20/01/22 15:28, Roland Knall wrote:
I think it is reasonable to assume that libraries provided with the
project are being used by external programs. I know one utility which
is being used in a rather closed-off community (but nonetheless widely
adopted by around 200-300 people), which got broken by this. Their
solution is to stay on 3.4 until either 3.6 is fixed or the utility
(which probably will be done in this case).
Sorry, I don't understand. A utility got broken by what? What do you
mean by "this"?
I also think it is the right thinking to allow libraries and more
specifically ABI breaks between releases. But those should never occur
in a maintenance release, which is what happened here if I got the
gist of it. If the break would be between 3.4.x and 3.6.0 it would be
fine by me. But breaking between 3.6.0 and 3.6.1 should not happen. I
consider this an issue that must be fixed - but the change should most
certainly happen with a version beyond 3.6.
And just additionally my 2 cents. Please always consider that although
the download rates of Wireshark are mind-blowing and wonderful, the
adoption within companies might be even greater with special build
versions. There exists many reasons for those versions, be it not
enough resources available to bring changes to mainline or having code
and adaptations which are for whatever (legal mostly) reasons not able
to be publicly available. Changes like these i would see as a risk to
those practices, and one of the reasons Wireshark has such a good
standing within the community are our policies for long-time stability
and maintainability.
Just my own thoughts on this.
cheers
Roland
Am Do., 20. Jan. 2022 um 13:42 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey
<bal...@balintreczey.hu>:
Hi All,
João shared his opinion about the project's commitment to maintain
stable shared library ABI within stable branches:
https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/issues/17822
I believe the current practice is reasonable and beneficial enough for
many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.
Comments are welcome.
Cheers,
Balint
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list<wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
