[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
making ldap_pvt.h public (was: Re: RE24 testing call #1 (2.4.46) LMDB RE0.9 testing call #1 (0.9.22))
- To: openldap-devel@openldap.org
- Subject: making ldap_pvt.h public (was: Re: RE24 testing call #1 (2.4.46) LMDB RE0.9 testing call #1 (0.9.22))
- From: Ryan Tandy <ryan@nardis.ca>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 10:01:01 -0800
- Content-disposition: inline
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nardis.ca; s=google; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GEkj5fPoXH+wx4aKpxD9VpUoAzDamTqlPacQM3oexjE=; b=Vgyjdr6EwgwgdmYbgccRt/kVvdFvUksyF0hjMvHDrWI2AvQfalVx1pL+cQnELO6mCi 761SBMLmJ9+tZ9Xw/VTNdjL75+j8eqm4hM08RleEtZsFCs8+jrTTb0xTWN73K5mHnyJY TEipm7yPZ/K5LdoILzI7ZcIkPmVQ8Jqg0OFPw=
- In-reply-to: <F9327FB45E132553480F1AB9@[192.168.1.30]>
- References: <7954DF1DC2D54FA2A6B3A1CD@[192.168.1.30]> <20180212043326.GA30544@redhat.com> <F9327FB45E132553480F1AB9@[192.168.1.30]>
- User-agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 09:09:53AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
The "ldap.h" file is specifically for RFC defined interfaces. I
discussed this with Howard, and we thought that the best way to
address this issue would be to rename "ldap_pvt.h" to "openldap.h", to
indicate that the methods found in it are openldap specific. This
should resolve the issue with packagers not packaging the file as
well.
With my packager hat on - the main thing that would affect whether I
package the file is not the name, but whether 'make install' installs it
into the public header directory i.e. /usr/include, and whether it's
subject to interface stability guarantees similar to ldap.h.
My understanding was the _pvt interfaces are for internal consumption
and therefore subject to change without notice. I can't really package a
header, if its API/ABI might change in a patch release because some
internal slapd or tool code needed a change.
(API/ABI changes across major releases i.e. 2.4->2.5 would be fine.)
If I misunderstood the semantics and it's not "private interfaces that
could change any time" but rather "OpenLDAP extensions to the LDAP API",
then great, and let's do it :) and the rename would make sense in that
case.