Re: yaml-cpp: Better to only build static libraries?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Richard Shaw wrote:

> Per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539386 I've now been
> bitten twice after being asked to update a package in EPEL.
> 
> Per this version this was a patch level update but it still breaks
> applications so I'm wondering if it would just be best to only supply a
> static library, at least in EPEL...

Dealing with an upstream that doesn't maintain a stable ABI is indeed 
problematic. :-/

Your approach (static lib) would be one way to possibly mitigate that.

Others: 
* engage your upstream about being more mindful about ABI and bumping 
library sonames when changes are introduced.  It's possible this may be 
unintentional and a bug worth fixing (if they knew about it).

-- Rex
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux