Hi Hal, On 14:28 Mon 30 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > > > As we learned recently having structured API leads to such problems just > > well, in this case one can expect "stable API" even if it was never > > declared. > > I hardly think that situation is comparable if you are referring to the > library APIs exposed inside of OpenSM for the vendors who wanted these > without OpenSM itself (for diags and ibutils).
Why not? We got complains about changes in libosmcomp just few weeks ago. I clearly don't want to make such limitations for OpenSM itself. > > I think I agree with Ira - OpenSM version exact match enforcement will > > make it clearer that plugin writer should be ready to rebuild and > > possibly update its code. > > should being the operative word. > > > > Might this be better handled as packaging with separate packages based > > > on licenses ? > > > > What do you mean? > > This is related to what I wrote below about the OpenFabrics licensing > requirements. The idea is if GPL licensing were to be allowed (perhaps > only in some limited context), then there could be two different > packages: dual and GPL. In that way plugins would be more assured of > being compatible with each other and OpenSM. I would prefer to separate packages by its functionality and not due to licensing issues. Anyway GPL is not permitted in OFA and all this discussion is yet hypothetical. Sasha _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
