Hi,
the last Linux-PAM release is now 1,5 year ago, since then we made quite some code changes and the bug tracker looks pretty good, means 3 enhancement requests and one defect are left.
So I would like to release a Linux-PAM 1.2.0 version during the next days.
Any opinions?
Thorsten
On Út, 2015-03-31 at 14:04 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
Hi,
the last Linux-PAM release is now 1,5 year ago, since then we made quite some code changes and the bug tracker looks pretty good, means 3 enhancement requests and one defect are left.
So I would like to release a Linux-PAM 1.2.0 version during the next days.
Any opinions?
Yes, I agree. Do we have such enhancements in the git that warrant the 1.2.0 name?
Regards,
On Tue, Mar 31, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Út, 2015-03-31 at 14:04 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
Hi,
the last Linux-PAM release is now 1,5 year ago, since then we made quite some code changes and the bug tracker looks pretty good, means 3 enhancement requests and one defect are left.
So I would like to release a Linux-PAM 1.2.0 version during the next days.
Any opinions?
Yes, I agree. Do we have such enhancements in the git that warrant the 1.2.0 name?
Beside the huge amount of changes (where I already think they are too much for minor 1.1.8->1.1.9 move), we have:
- Alternativ vendor configuration files - lot of changes of libpam, including new functions. (Ok, what to do with the "1.1.9" symbols? Correctly, we would need to change that to 1.2.0 ...)
So in the end I would vote for 1.2.0.
Thorsten
On Út, 2015-03-31 at 14:39 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Út, 2015-03-31 at 14:04 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
Hi,
the last Linux-PAM release is now 1,5 year ago, since then we made quite some code changes and the bug tracker looks pretty good, means 3 enhancement requests and one defect are left.
So I would like to release a Linux-PAM 1.2.0 version during the next days.
Any opinions?
Yes, I agree. Do we have such enhancements in the git that warrant the 1.2.0 name?
Beside the huge amount of changes (where I already think they are too much for minor 1.1.8->1.1.9 move), we have:
- Alternativ vendor configuration files
- lot of changes of libpam, including new functions. (Ok, what to do with the "1.1.9" symbols? Correctly, we would need to change that to 1.2.0 ...)
Yes, you're right. I forgot about that. We should probably change them to 1.2.0 as they weren't in a released version. We do not guarantee ABI compatibility with unreleased versions.
So in the end I would vote for 1.2.0.
OK, I agree.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:39:57PM +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Út, 2015-03-31 at 14:04 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
Hi,
the last Linux-PAM release is now 1,5 year ago, since then we made quite some code changes and the bug tracker looks pretty good, means 3 enhancement requests and one defect are left.
So I would like to release a Linux-PAM 1.2.0 version during the next days.
Any opinions?
Yes, I agree. Do we have such enhancements in the git that warrant the 1.2.0 name?
Beside the huge amount of changes (where I already think they are too much for minor 1.1.8->1.1.9 move), we have:
- Alternativ vendor configuration files
- lot of changes of libpam, including new functions. (Ok, what to do with the "1.1.9" symbols? Correctly, we would need to change that to 1.2.0 ...)
There is just one such symbol (LIBPAM_MODUTIL_1.1.9) with one function (pam_modutil_sanitize_helper_fds) introduced by commit b0ec5d1e472a0cd74972bfe9575dcf6a3d0cad1c more than a year ago.
It's been used in distribution releases and therefore shouldn't be changed regardless of the release name.
On Tue, Mar 31, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
There is just one such symbol (LIBPAM_MODUTIL_1.1.9) with one function (pam_modutil_sanitize_helper_fds) introduced by commit b0ec5d1e472a0cd74972bfe9575dcf6a3d0cad1c more than a year ago.
It's been used in distribution releases and therefore shouldn't be changed regardless of the release name.
I have to admit that I don't care much about Linux distributions using ABI changes from not released code. But I know, we should release much more frequently and the change would really only be cosmetic ...
I released now Linux-PAM 1.2.0 with LIBPAM_MODUTIL_1.1.9
Thorsten
On Tuesday 2015-03-31 14:39, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
- Alternativ vendor configuration files
- lot of changes of libpam, including new functions.
(Ok, what to do with the "1.1.9" symbols? Correctly, we would need to change that to 1.2.0 ...)
You can just leave them at 1.1.9. After all, they did not change in terms of ABI, which is all what ELF versions are supposed to be about.
pam-developers@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Dmitry V. Levin -
Jan Engelhardt -
Thorsten Kukuk -
Tomas Mraz