Dne 10.10.2015 v 02:50 Kevin Kofler napsal(a): > Chris Adams wrote: >> Is that short-sighted? IMHO yes. Can Fedora fix that? Doubtful. >> There are three choices: >> >> - Fedora attempts to patch in a stable(-enough) ABI, build shared >> libraries, and unbundle all consumers of said libraries. This is a >> large (and growing) amount of work, and there is not necessarily >> sufficient volunteer time to make it practical going forward. >> >> - Fedora excludes all such software, reducing the usefulness and >> relevance of Fedora to a growing number of users. >> >> - Fedora pushes upstreams for stable ABIs and unbundling, but recognizes >> the "real world" upstreams are creating, and the demands of many users >> who just want to have a desktop with the stuff they want to click, and >> so allows bundling where there's no practical alternative. > You are missing the fourth choice: We simply push ABI-changing updates of > the library as grouped updates with all dependent packages and we ignore the rest of the world who could build something useful on the top of the Fedora. Vít > This works fine > as long as the library is not used by too many packages and the ABI changes > are not so major as to require nontrivial porting. We have already done this > in practice many times, for several packages. For example, exiv2 updates are > done in such a coordinated way (usually by Rex Dieter). > > Kevin Kofler > -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
