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

On 2003-03-09 at 15:17:46-0800 Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com> wrote:

> Actually, I don't think they need to kill the tree. They just need

I didn't mean "kill the tree" as in kill the codebase; I meant "kill the tree" as in admitting that libnet 1.1 should really have been called 2.0 instead, and acknowledging that by withdrawing libnet-1.1 and re-releasing it (the same codebase) as libnet2-2.0.

(Calling it "libnet2" but leaving the version at 1.1 would be very confusing. Essentially, if you're arguing that it should be called libnet2, you're arguing that the major version number of the package should be 2 as well.)

> > What I *am* arguing is that the decision to rename libnet-1.1 to

I thought that you were, which is why I was arguing with you. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

> Since the main user of libnet-1.1 in my group has ditched it in

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

Just out of curiosity, is that because libdnet has versioned its API, or is because it can coexist with libnet simply because it uses a different name?

James