Hi, Le samedi 18 avril 2009 à 13:43 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso a écrit : > Eric Leblond wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Le vendredi 17 avril 2009 à 12:52 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso a écrit : > >> ... > 1) Looking at my ulogd2 installation, this exports a lot of header files > for external use: > > $ ls /usr/include/ulogd/ > common.h hash.h jhash.h linux_rbtree.h timer.h > conffile.h ipfix_protocol.h linuxlist.h slist.h ulogd.h > > Sorry, but this is a bit nasty. If this patch aims to allow compiling > external ulogd2 module, please make public only the basic functions > (register, unregister, ...) in one header public file called ulogd.h or > something like that. But not exporting all those jhash.h, linux_rbtree.h > and so on. Your point is correct... > 2) Related to the previous point, if we make public some API, we'll have > to get attached to them to ensure backward compatibility. If we support > external modules, we'll have to engage to not changing the exported API, > otherwise people may complain about breakages of their external modules. > All those files that you have exported means quite a lot APIs that we'll > have to get attached to. This is not what I was trying to do. The only goal was compilation outside of tree. Target was not to provide a complete and fixed plugin infrastructure. In this case, a clean and stable API is really needed. > I have my concerns with regards to this patch from both the technical > approach and the new policy that it introduces. I agree for a revert of this commit. I can push it if you want. BR, -- Eric Leblond <eric@xxxxxx> INL: http://www.inl.fr/ NuFW: http://www.nufw.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
