For clarification: " but the change should most certainly happen with a version beyond 3.6" means, that the break should be reverted for 3.6.x, but it should be put in place for -dev to be in the next major release
cheers Am Do., 20. Jan. 2022 um 16:28 Uhr schrieb Roland Knall <rkn...@gmail.com>: > 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). > > 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
