On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 08:33:08PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > On 2008-11-06 dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > reassign 503833 libtasn1-3 > > severity 503833 important > > thanks > > > Upstream has developed a patch: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnutls-devel/2008-11/msg00000.html > > > If I apply this to libtasn1-3 it fixes the problem for me. > > However, I had set the nocheck DEB_BUILD_OPTION because it causes > > libtasn1-3 to fail at least one build-time test. > > > It would be nice to get a fix for this into lenny as it will fix a > > regression from etch's subversion. > > Hello, > > I have just uploaded a fixed version to experimental.
Thanks Andreas! > I am reluctant > to go immediately to unstable since it requires a shlibs bump due to > an added function. I definitely wouldn't call myself a shared lib packaging expert, but does adding a function really break the ABI? It shouldn't break backwards compatibility, and anything newly built that may use the new function should automatically get a versioned runtime dependency. > I am not also not sure about this change: > > ---------------------- > --- a/lib/libtasn1.h > +++ b/lib/libtasn1.h > @@ -105,11 +105,14 @@ extern "C" > /* that represent an ASN.1 DEFINITION. */ > /******************************************************/ > > +#define SMALL_VALUE_SIZE 16 > + > struct node_asn_struct > { > char *name; /* Node name */ > unsigned int type; /* Node type */ > unsigned char *value; /* Node value */ > + unsigned char small_value[SMALL_VALUE_SIZE]; /* if value is less than > that store it here */ > int value_len; > struct node_asn_struct *down; /* Pointer to the son node */ > struct node_asn_struct *right; /* Pointer to the brother node */ > struct node_asn_struct *left; /* Pointer to the next list element > */ > }; > > typedef struct node_asn_struct node_asn; > > typedef node_asn *ASN1_TYPE; > ---------------------- > > Although the docs only talk about using the ASN1_TYPE pointer the > struct definition still is in the public interface. Doesn't this break > the ABI? - I am really not sure, to tired. My guess would be yes[1].. which sucks because it would make it significantly harder to get into lenny and fix the subversion regression :( I wonder if there's an alternate way to handle it? [1] but again, I'm still not an expert here :) -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]