On 05/28/2015 03:09 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
I don't have a good example, so let's illustrate that hypothetically. Let's say Fedora includes a terminal application written with boost libraries, "boost-terminal". That application requires boost version 1.53, which was included in the release with boost-terminal. The maintainer for boost-terminal goes away, and the package is deprecated. Upgrading Fedora to the next version might not complete successfully because the new release includes boost 1.54, which isn't compatible with the installed boost-terminal application, and can't be installed in parallel with boost 1.53.
What you're saying is, in effect, that boost 1.54 breaks backward compatibility and boost-terminal isn't going to get upgraded. Isn't it up to boost's maintainer to see to it that this doesn't become an issue? (Yes, we all know of cases where the maintainer either doesn't check properly or simply doesn't care, but it's my understanding that it's still part of their job.) One of the problems the OSS community keeps pointing to in commercial software is the way newer versions of programs fail to read or write files in formats that older versions understand, while bragging that their packages don't suffer from that fault. Has this changed, or is it simply a case of sloppy testing?
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
