On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 02:31:42AM +1100, Duncan Roe wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 01:13:46PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 01:02:23PM +1100, Duncan Roe wrote: > > > The documentation was written in the days before doxygen required groups or even > > > doxygen.cfg, so create doxygen.cfg.in and introduce one \defgroup per source > > > file, encompassing pretty-much the whole file. > > > > [...] > > > > > > > I'm ambivalent about this, it's been up on the table for a while. > > > > This library is rather old, and new applications should probably > > be based instead used libmnl, which is a better choice. > > > The thing is, the Deprecated functions in libnetfilter_queue are much better > documented than the newer functions and that documentation refers to > libnfnetlink functions. Would you help me get better the documentation for the new libnetfilter_queue API? I'll be trying to address your questions timely in case you decide to enroll in such endeavor. > So I think that while the deprecated functions are documented, you should really > have documentation for the old library they use. Are you refering to libnfnetlink or libnetfilter_queue in this case? If you insist on documenting libnfnetlink, I'll be fine with it, no worries. > BTW, ldd of my app shows libnfnetlink.so although it doesn't use any deprecated > functions. Is that expected? Yes, there is still code in the libraries that refer to libnfnetlink. Replacing some of that code should be feasible via libmnl, it is a task that has been in my TODO list for long time. There's always something with more priority in the queue.
