On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:13:44PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> The fact that a core library that's stability is critical to the
> distribution as a whole doesn't bother to adhere to this and while
> having gone through the hoops of putting in a feature change basically
> then proceeded to completely ignore the requirements of said process
> (ie they dumped a bunch of stuff on the wiki and haven't bothered to
> revisit it and update it since) is some what pathetic in my mind.
As an upstream policy, glibc does not break ABI[1] and we've tried to
adhere to this ever since I started contributing to glibc (which is ~2
years ago). Any ABI break that happens is a bug and the ABI impact
Carlos talks about is mainly due to such bugs being discovered in
rawhide, which again is not very often.
Siddhesh
[1] We did unknowingly break ABI in S/390 in 2.19 and that will likely
be fixed in 2.20 and require at least a partial rebuild (perl and
its modules), but you would have needed the mass rebuild even if
we would have directly introduced a 2.20 release.Attachment:
pgp8ub0LS6ch1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
