[Live-devel] Patches in the Debian package

[Benjamin Drung]

Am Montag, den 24.12.2012, 10:30 +1000 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> 
> > > 1/ The first 'patch' was apparently intended to remove some
> > > compiler
> > > warnings.  It's harmless, but I recommend not applying it, because
> > > the
> > > code that generates these compiler warnings might end up changing
> > > sometime (which will break the patch).
> > 
> > Why do you cast integers/bytes into void pointers? Unless there is a
> > reason, I think the patch should be applied?
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but I'll probably just change the code to eliminate the
> compiler warnings.

I am happy by either carrying the patch or having the warnings fixes by
a change from you. There was no convincing argument mentioned to drop
the patch.

> > > 3/ The third 'patch' is definitely wrong, and should be removed.
> > >  The
> > > whole point of deprecating the old, synchronous "RTSPClient"
> > > interface
> > > is that any code that happens to depend upon the old interface
> > > needs
> > > to explicitly be updated - by
> > > "#define"ing RTSPCLIENT_SYNCHRONOUS_INTERFACE - so that it can
> > > continue using it.  But anyway, no code that depends upon the old
> > > interface is present anywhere in the LIVE555 distribution, or (I
> > > presume) anywhere else in the Debian distribution either.
> > 
> > I see a problem here: We build a static/shared library without the
> > deprecated old, synchronous RTSPClient interface. If a user defines
> > RTSPCLIENT_SYNCHRONOUS_INTERFACE, he will get the old header
> > functions,
> > but linking with the static/shared library will fail.
> 
> 
> There's no problem here.  In lots of places in the code, there are
> pieces of code that are #ifdef'd out by default.  (E.g., these often
> add extra diagnostic output to help with debugging.)  It's always been
> understood that if a developer wants to enable these pieces of code,
> then they need to build the library themselves - with appropriate
> compile-time flags - rather than rely upon a pre-built library.  This
> is no different.  So the third patch should be removed.

I have removed the patch. Please keep in mind that future changes like
that causes an ABI breakage (and therefore a soname bump).

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer