Regarding questions I would like to know if is Wireshark is developed,
including each of the three existing libraries, for other projects to
add as dependencies to their software stack. It is possible I need to
adjust my understanding and expectations accordingly, and I will do so.
External plugins developed independently are not really relevant to this
discussion. Plugins are not independent projects in a technical sense,
they depend on Wireshark as a whole and not only any particular
Wireshark library.
If we wanted to release system shared libraries, in the style of libpcap
like Balint intends, I think it would be important to split them out of
the main repo, with their own build system, lifecycle, clearly defined
purpose, versioning, API/ABI policy, release cadence, etc. It would also
be important to restructure the source tree, at a minimum to add an
include folder for each library.
This would be how to develop, maintain and release a library properly,
in my opinion. That's why I said in the Gitlab issue a shared library
should be implemented bottom up and not the other way around, like it
was done here.
On 20/01/22 20:34, Gerald Combs wrote:
If I understand the discussion in issue 17822 and here, we're looking
at the following questions (feel free to correct me where needed):
Q: Should we commit to a stable ABI between minor releases?
I think everyone agrees that we should, or at least that it's a
worthwhile goal.
Q: Should *wsutil* be part of that stable ABI?
Debian, Ubuntu and (according to rpmfind.net) OpenSuSE and Mageia
treat it as such. It would be helpful to know what non-Wireshark
packages depend on wsutil in those distributions and elsewhere.
Q: What's the best way to ensure stability?
That's a tricky one. We did so in the past using
abi-compliance-checker, but that was removed in 6e5ba74b. I think it
would be worthwhile to try adding it back in a more simplified form
for release branches, but I'm not sure when I would have time to work
on that.
On 1/20/22 7:29 AM, Roland Knall wrote:
For clarification: " but the change should most certainly happen with
a version beyond 3.6" means, that the break should be reverted for
3.6.x, but it should be put in place for -dev to be in the next major
release
cheers
Am Do., 20. Jan. 2022 um 16:28 Uhr schrieb Roland Knall
<rkn...@gmail.com <mailto:rkn...@gmail.com>>:
I think it is reasonable to assume that libraries provided with
the project are being used by external programs. I know one utility
which is being used in a rather closed-off community (but
nonetheless widely adopted by around 200-300 people), which got
broken by this. Their solution is to stay on 3.4 until either 3.6 is
fixed or the utility (which probably will be done in this case).
I also think it is the right thinking to allow libraries and more
specifically ABI breaks between releases. But those should never
occur in a maintenance release, which is what happened here if I got
the gist of it. If the break would be between 3.4.x and 3.6.0 it
would be fine by me. But breaking between 3.6.0 and 3.6.1 should not
happen. I consider this an issue that must be fixed - but the change
should most certainly happen with a version beyond 3.6.
And just additionally my 2 cents. Please always consider that
although the download rates of Wireshark are mind-blowing and
wonderful, the adoption within companies might be even greater with
special build versions. There exists many reasons for those versions,
be it not enough resources available to bring changes to mainline or
having code and adaptations which are for whatever (legal mostly)
reasons not able to be publicly available. Changes like these i would
see as a risk to those practices, and one of the reasons Wireshark
has such a good standing within the community are our policies for
long-time stability and maintainability.
Just my own thoughts on this.
cheers
Roland
Am Do., 20. Jan. 2022 um 13:42 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey
<bal...@balintreczey.hu <mailto:bal...@balintreczey.hu>>:
Hi All,
João shared his opinion about the project's commitment to
maintain
stable shared library ABI within stable branches:
https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/issues/17822
<https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/issues/17822>
I believe the current practice is reasonable and beneficial
enough for
many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.
Comments are welcome.
Cheers,
Balint
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list
<wireshark-dev@wireshark.org <mailto:wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
<https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev>
Unsubscribe:
https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
<https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev>
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org
<mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org>?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe