On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 12:28 +0800, Darren Reed wrote: > The last comment for wireshark, PSARC/2007/334, was an acknowledgement > from Bart to entertain the idea of shipping libpcap with that case. I > suspect that > this case would make that action redundant?
Yes, absolutely. I think it would be appropriate for Sagun or me to send mail to that case log to make that point clear and remove any potential confusion. > Additionally, are the pathnames for the libraries, and the "-lpcap" also > uncommitted? The /usr/include/pcap.h should be Committed, and the other header files listed in section 4 should be considered Project Private. The library paths are a different beast. Now that you bring it up, I don't think it's a good idea to encode "version 0.9.8" in the pathname of the library, as that forces us to keep it around forever. We'd have to ship every version of the library in the future (0.9.9, 0.10, 1.0, etc...) even if there are no incompatible changes between libraries in order to keep applications from breaking. I'm no linker expert, so is there a linker expert in the house who can provide some advice on what to ship as a shared object filename? libpcap.so.1? -Seb
