Chris Murphy (lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > Really, this should be solved in upstream projects so you can expect a > > stable library API across distribution boundaries. Doing it in Fedora is > > not actually solving the problem. > > Thanks for the response. > > Is it really upstream causing the problem in the first place? Or is it the > distributions, who have always selected what library versions they will > package, while also proscribing packaged libraries in applications, along > with the insistence that it's the distribution package maintainer who > decides what ships, not the developer? A little from column A, a little from column B. You have well used and promoted library stacks like Boost, which don't bother with ABI compatibilty at all. OpenSSL used to do this as well, so did Berkley DB. When you have library stacks like these, a distribution policy of 'always ship the latest' *is* going to exacerbate the problem for any users. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
