On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 09:39 +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > Of course, nobody likes ABI *breakage*. And I agree that if all ABI > breakage could be detected automatically, ABI breakages would never > make > it into stable releases. > The thing is, the tool detects ABI *changes*. Some changes are > breakages. Some are not, depending on the particular context we are > looking at. The tool does have heuristics to categorize certain > changes > as being ABI breakages, but ultimately, I believe there is going to > be > cases where human intervention is going to be necessary to tell if a > given change is harmful or not. And it's going to be so for the > foreseeable future. You can think of it as a kind of patch review, > but for ABI changes specifically. I have not seen the output of abicheck (I use abi-compliance-checker personally but I guess abidiff is as good). However, I'm not sure about which changes which are not breakages you mean? I'm not aware of ABI changes which do not break users of libraries. regards, Nikos -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
