Subject: Re: zlib vs. gzopenfull(3)
To: matthew green <mrg@eterna.com.au>
From: Jason Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 04/26/2004 13:32:01
--Apple-Mail-8--522376825
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed


On Apr 25, 2004, at 9:41 AM, matthew green wrote:

> it seems cleanest to me to simply remove these functions from zlib 
> again
> without bumping the major number.  they were only ever used by gzip(1)
> and really shouldn't stay in zlib(3).  bumping zlib(3)'s major to 
> remove
> them seems likely to cause pain.  i can't imagine any other program is
> using these API's yet (and they shouldn't) so no one should actually
> lose.

I agree, I think it's fine to do this.

         -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>


--Apple-Mail-8--522376825
content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453;
	name=PGP.sig
content-description: This is a digitally signed message part
content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFAjXHCOpVKkaBm8XkRAhuaAKCcsKUXpXV6bS/oVtFpKif4aaky8ACfdXxQ
d2wpykHl+keiTnYjoBGgDO8=
=aydP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail-8--522376825--