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--