Re: Adding sha256 support into jigdo tools (jigdo and jigit)

["Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net>]

Hi,

while exploring the need for adaptions in the build system of libsofs,
i wonder whether it is really necessary to create LIBJTE2 in libjte.ver.
Adding new functions is upward compatible.
In my libraries i add them to the current (and only) SONAME version.

Fine check for compatibility happens at compile time by the required
minimum version (e.g. iso_libjte_req_* versus LIBJTE_VERSION_*) and
at run time by calling libjte__is_compatible().

If libisoburn gets a configure.ac test for existence of
libjte_set_checksum_algorithm(), a compiler macro to enable its use,
and a configure option to disable it despite being available,
then it can even be built with the older libjte.
(Fully autostylish.)

So how about this in libjte/libjte.ver ?

 LIBJTE1 {
   global
   ...
     libjte_get_next_message;
     libjte_clear_msg_list;
+    libjte_set_checksum_algorithm;
+    libjte_set_checksum_path;
+    libjte_add_checksum_demand;
+    libjte_decide_file_jigdo2;
+    libjte_write_match_record2;
   local:
     *;
 };


(Good news is that even libjte2 would probably not cause changes in the
 build system of libisofs. Currently it depends only on <libjte/libjte.h>
 and on libjte.so. I hope that both can keep their names.
 debian/control depends on libjte1 indirectly via libjte-dev.
 Adding "(>= 2.0.0)" would not really be necessary.)


Have a nice day :)

Thomas