Re: [RFC] Renaming libnet-1.1.1 to libnet2-1.1.1

Aaron Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:29:46PM -0500, James Ralston wrote:

Hear, hear!

> [snip]

+1.

> > On 2003-03-05 at 15:25:02-0800 Dan Kegel <dkegel@ixiacom.com> wrote:

There are two proposals on the table:
1. rename libnet-1.0 to libnet0
2. rename libnet-1.1 to libnet2

Aaron and I vote for #2 because it's the only one that allows building and running the zillions of libnet-1.0 apps unchanged, and puts the burden of migration onto the relatively few libnet-1.1 apps.

Do you need help?

In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related securityfocus.com Links bugtraq certification focus-bsd focus-ids focus-ih focus-linux focus-ms focus-sun focus-unix-other focus-virus forensics incidents libnet linux-secnews ms-secnews pen-test secpapers secprog sectools secureshell security-basics securityjobs sf-news vuln-dev webappsec Request more information about Pantek

James votes for #1 because he wants everyone to migrate to libnet-1.1, and forget about the old libnet-1.0.

James, I think the flaw in your approach is that you're trying to use technology to dictate policy. Much better to just add a new library, I say, than to force all the users of the old library to mend their ways, no matter how easy and logical it would be.

What do other people think?
- Dan