Bug 50420
Summary: | rpm 4.0.3 CVS: static vs. non-static fdFileno | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Retired] Red Hat Raw Hide | Reporter: | Red Hat Bugzilla <bugzilla> |
Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Jeff Johnson <jbj> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 1.0 | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2001-07-31 03:39:50 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Red Hat Bugzilla
2001-07-31 02:10:20 UTC
The two copies of fdFileno are there to attempt to satisfy legacy needs in both the API and the ABI. I'm gonna rip the version from the library in the next version of rpm, preferring instead to have applications compile in a static inline wrapper from the API (i.e. c code in the include file), as that is far easier to maintain legacy compatibility than the more traditional ABI using symbols in libraries. I can be convinced otherwise, however. Speak now ... :-) "Next version" meaning post 4.0.3, or 4.0.3? I think your proposition seems fine. With that in mind, my local strategy changed -- I added the `static' back into the rpmio/rpmio_internal.h , and just removed the declaration of fdFileno in rpmio/rpmio.h, and that works fine for me. frFilno in rpmio/rpmio_api removed in my next checkin, Should be in rpm-4.0.3-0.87. |