Mailing List Archive: GnuPG: devel

Why Is libassuan still a static lib?

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

eric at debian

Dec 9, 2006, 5:55 PM

Post #1 of 5 (592 views)
Permalink

Why Is libassuan still a static lib?

Hello,

I was curious why libassuan is still distributed as only a static lib? I
can understand that while gnupg 2 was being developed this would have
made more sense, because things were still in flux, but I would imagine
that now the API has stabilized. There is at least one other program
using libassuan (OpenSC) and from a distribution PoV, it would be much
better to have this as a shared lib (easier security updates, less
memory consumption).

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
Gnupg-devel [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel

eric at debian

Dec 9, 2006, 4:46 PM

Post #2 of 5 (575 views)
Permalink

Why Is libassuan still a static lib? [In reply to]

wk at gnupg

Dec 11, 2006, 1:13 AM

Post #3 of 5 (574 views)
Permalink

Re: Why Is libassuan still a static lib? [In reply to]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 02:55, eric [at] debian said:

> I was curious why libassuan is still distributed as only a static lib? I

Because we are not yet sure about the API. As soon as we are sure of
it we will create a shared library. As a mainatiner you should be
glad that we don't need to break the ABI too often.

FWIW, GPGME and Pinentry both come with stipped down and source copied
versions for libassuan.

Shalom-Salam,

Werner

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
Gnupg-devel [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel

eric at debian

Dec 11, 2006, 7:52 PM

Post #4 of 5 (573 views)
Permalink

Re: Why Is libassuan still a static lib? [In reply to]

Werner Koch wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 02:55, eric [at] debian said:
>
>> I was curious why libassuan is still distributed as only a static lib? I
>
> Because we are not yet sure about the API. As soon as we are sure of
> it we will create a shared library. As a mainatiner you should be
> glad that we don't need to break the ABI too often.

I sort of thought going 1.0 meant you had the API under control.

> FWIW, GPGME and Pinentry both come with stipped down and source copied
> versions for libassuan.

Ugh, really? Will they be receptive to fixing that?

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
Gnupg-devel [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel

wk at gnupg

Dec 11, 2006, 11:27 PM

Post #5 of 5 (568 views)
Permalink

Re: Why Is libassuan still a static lib? [In reply to]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:52, eric [at] debian said:

> I sort of thought going 1.0 meant you had the API under control.

I believe that this is the case. Others might only start looking at it
because it is 1.0 now. As soon as GPGME fully supports descriptor
passing we will come up with a shared lib.

>> FWIW, GPGME and Pinentry both come with stipped down and source copied
>> versions for libassuan.
>
> Ugh, really? Will they be receptive to fixing that?

No. It does not make much sense. Both use only the client part and
tehre is no point in adding all the support for servers. If is not
much code anyway.

Salam-Shalom,

Werner

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
Gnupg-devel [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads