Re: API break / so versioning

["Tambet Ingo" <tambet gmail com>]

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 20:13 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> What you can easily notice (by running a diff), ist that not only a lot
>> of symbols were added, but also quite a few were removed, which could
>> result in application crashes. In case of an API break, you usually bump
>> the SOVERSION, which leads to the more general question, if NM shouldn't
>> start using proper soversioning [1].
>
> Yes, it probably should.  One thing that we've tried to do is keep the
> old libnm_glib symbols around though, which is why we kept the
> libnm_glib name instead or renaming it to libnm-glib instead.  So that
> at least apps that used the old basic 0.6 API bits would still work.

There's probably no point in keeping that anymore. The basic API is
kept, but some of the basic defined variables have changed
(NMDeviceState), so even if something might still compile, it probably
doesn't work anymore.

> If we're willing to ditch that assumption, then I'm all for removing
> that code and bumping the soname.
>
>> I also wondered, if the separate library libnm_glib_vpn.so.0 is really
>> necessary or should be folded into libnm_glib.so.0.
>
> This is used by the VPN services and isn't really part of the same bits
> that should be used by clients of NM.  I tend to think we should keep
> them separate, since if you're writing a client like nm-applet you
> shouldn't care about anything that's in libnm_glib_vpn.  Maybe Tambet
> has more thoughts?

Yes, these should be separate. One (libnm-glib) is part of the client,
the other (libnm-glib-vpn) part of the daemon.

Tambet