[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: openldap-2.1.16: what happened to cache.c?

To: Roland Bauerschmidt <rb@debian.org>
Subject: Re: openldap-2.1.16: what happened to cache.c?
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:31:52 -0800
Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <20030328145034.GA14741@bauerschmidt.eu.org>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030320105929.02056e50@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030314130323.01a5d138@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030314130323.01a5d138@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030320105929.02056e50@127.0.0.1>

At 06:50 AM 3/28/2003, Roland Bauerschmidt wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>> At this point, I see little reason to revert (given the routines have
>> long been broken and hence deprecated).
>
>Even though that might be true, applications using it will break when
>libldap is upgraded, although they shouldn't as the SO name didn't
>change. 

yes, broken applications will break further.

> Shouldn't it be bumped then?

I care more that non-broken applications will automatically
pick up important bug fixes in non-deprecated library routines.

Kurt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: openldap-2.1.16: what happened to cache.c?
  - From: Andreas <andreas@conectiva.com.br>
- Re: openldap-2.1.16: what happened to cache.c?
  - From: Torsten Landschoff <t.landschoff@gmx.net>

References:
- Re: openldap-2.1.16: what happened to cache.c?
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: openldap-2.1.16: what happened to cache.c?
  - From: Roland Bauerschmidt <rb@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: openldap-2.1.16: what happened to cache.c?
Next by Date: RE: back-bdb future
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread