[lm-sensors] libsensors patches
Hans de Goede
j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Sun Mar 11 18:13:05 CET 2007
Mark M. Hoffman wrote:
> Hi Hans, Jean:
<quoted stuff snipped>
> First, I should be clear: I was planning to modify the libsensors ABI for
> libsensors 3.0. That's the reason behind incrementing the major rev number
> from 2 to 3.
> However, I was not planning to do a complete redesign. I just don't have the
> time for that. Here is an example of the type of change I'm planning to make:
> -extern int sensors_match_chip(sensors_chip_name chip1,
> - sensors_chip_name chip2);
> +extern int sensors_match_chip(const sensors_chip_name *chip1,
> + const sensors_chip_name *chip2);
> That breaks the ABI, but it's not a redesign. Nor does it make it very
> difficult for libsensors users to update. The most significant change would be
> to add 'include' functionality to the config scanner.
Why? I understand this may be an improvement speed-wise, but libsensors
is afaik not really speed critical. To me (as a packager of a distro
maintaining over a 100 packages) this is needless ABI breakage and as a
packager I strongly dislike that. Breaking ABI is not something that
should be done lightly and thus is in this case not warrented IMHO.
> However, I do appreciate that a true redesign may be warranted. If you want to
> tackle this, please don't let me hold you back. The sensors project has always
> been very liberal about SVN access and contributors, because we haven't had the
> luxury of having many contributors with lots of time.
As said the API is not all it could be, but it works, accept for adding
something to get the type of a feature I think it will do for now.
> If people with more time and/or energy come along, I don't want to stand in the
> way just because I've been around longer. I can also tell you that Jean feels
> the same way (we're both on #linux-sensors as I write this.)
> So how about this: you get SVN access, and get these patches committed to a
> feature branch (as I did some time ago for the scanner). If everything's ready
> before 2.10.4, *you* can merge them back to the main line. If it turns out you
> decide to go in a different direction (destabilize the API/ABI or whatever)
> then you're already on a branch so it's no big deal.
Sounds like a good plan to me. My preferred user name is jwrdegoede. Do
you want a public ssh-key? I can pgp sign the mail with the key with a
long registered pgp-key if you want.
> Meanwhile, I'll work on the remainder of the 3.0 material on the branch I
> already have open, as I have time. If it turns out that you want to do a
> complete API/ABI redesign, I can always abandon that part of the 3.0 branch.
As said I've no plans to redo the ABI, my point is more that as long as
we don't redesign it I see no reason for a 3.0 .
More information about the lm-sensors