Hello, On 06/04/2010 08:59 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Andrey Ponomarenko wrote: > >> Taken into account, thanks. Some automatic way to add libraries may be >> very useful. At the moment all the libraries can be only manually added >> to the system by the administrator. If you want to add some library to >> the system than send a request to me or >> upstream-tracker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> <mailto:upstream-tracker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > There are some false positives in your checks. In particular, some > (actually, most, if not all) of the "new" virtual functions you flag for > kdelibs are just added reimplementations of virtual functions in a base > class. Those don't change the layout of the vtable at all, they just replace > an entry pointing to the function inherited from the base class with an > entry pointing to the new reimplemented function. > Thank you very much for this report. I've fixed a serious bug in the checker's code relative to this issue. > Another problem is that e.g. for GTK+, you have a linear sequence including > development versions, but ABI guarantees are never from one development > version to the next, but only from one stable version to the next. > Development versions are only required to be backwards-compatible with the > previous stable version, as is the next stable version. So the previous > version in linear sequence is not always the correct reference. (The same > holds for kdelibs, by the way, but there your table doesn't include > development versions, making this a non-issue.) A lot of the "breakage" > reported for GTK+ is actually APIs added in a development branch and > adjusted before the official release. This is perfectly within the scope of > GTK+'s API/ABI guarantees. > > Kevin Kofler > > -- Andrey Ponomarenko Linux Verification Center, ISPRAS web: http://www.linuxtesting.org -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
