Hi Pablo, On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:48:36PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > 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. OK I will take that on as a project. > > > 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? libnetfilter_queue > If you insist on documenting libnfnetlink, I'll be fine with it, no > worries. Yes I insist. LMK which compiler warning fix you'd like (if any) > > > 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. Cheers ... Duncan.
