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.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
(You'll never know whether the road is wrong though.)